Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CROYDON TRAMLINK BILL [Lords]

Considered; to be read the Third time.

LONDON LOCAL AUTHORITIES BILL [Lords]

Considered; amendments agreed to.

To be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Water

Mr. Dunnachie: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of the new water authority board members will be councillors.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Sir Hector Monro): There will be a significant number of elected councillors among the membership of the new water and sewerage authorities. Further decisions on appointments have not yet been taken.

Mr. Dunnachie: I thank the Minister for his reply. The Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), wrote the Minister a letter some time ago expressing the anxieties of Eastwood district council about the lack of elected membership on the governing bodies of the water boards. The Minister's reply was terse, to say the least. He told the Under-Secretary of State that it would be wrong to put elected members in a position of power on the water boards in case they went against Government policy, inasmuch as the Minister thought that elected members were not the representatives of the people and that local people should be represented on the boards by those with money, companies and so forth—not ordinary elected members, but lackeys whom the Minister would pick—

Madam Speaker: Order. I hope that a question will come my way soon, instead of a statement. Perhaps the Minister can attempt an answer.

Sir Hector Monro: I think that the hon. Gentleman was paraphrasing a rather good letter. I can assure the House, as I have done before, both in the Chamber and in Committee, that there will be a significant number of local elected councillors on the water authorities. They will be there for their blend of skills and experience and perhaps because of their previous work with water authorities and local

authorities. After we have consulted and the Bill has been enacted, I think that Opposition Members will be very pleased with the results.

Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: For the benefit of Opposition Members, will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to say clearly and slowly, if possible in words of one syllable, that under his plans water will not be privatised but will remain in public hands, that that is enshrined in law, that there can be no disconnections, and that local elected councillors will be on the boards? Will he also confirm that, regardless of what system is in place, water bills in Scotland will have to rise, due to the investment required?

Sir Hector Monro: Yes, yes, yes, yes and yes. I thank my hon. Friend very much for putting his question so concisely.

Madam Speaker: A splendid response.

Mrs. Ray Michie: What guarantee can the Minister give that the large rural areas of Scotland will be represented on the water quangos? For example, will Orkney and Shetland have any representation in the Northern water area, will Argyll and Bute have any in the Western area, and will Dumfries and Galloway have any in the Eastern area? There is a real anxiety that some of the smaller unitary authorities could end up with no representation at all.

Sir Hector Monro: There is always anxiety in any world where change is envisaged. I assure the hon. Lady that this change will be very much for the better. All areas will have reasonable representation, not only on the water authorities, but on the councils that we are appointing.

Mr. Salmond: Has the Minister had time to look at the Which? report on English private water companies, which states that while costs and profits of water companies south of the border have increased by 70 per cent. water costs to consumers have doubled? Indeed, it says that the only things rising faster than the exorbitant cost of water south of the border are the extravagant salaries of the chief executives of water companies. Given the disaster that is unfolding south of the border, is that not an argument for keeping Scottish water under local democratic control?

Sir Hector Monro: The answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question is no. On the second part, the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, having read the Committee's deliberations, that the authorities that we have set up are public authorities, the members of which are appointed by the Secretary of State and are democratically responsible to him. I think that all will be well and that we shall get on with doing what is required—improving the water and sewerage services in Scotland as soon as possible.

Mr. George Robertson: The Minister will recall that in March this year, 97 per cent. of the people of Strathclyde region rejected the Government's proposals for putting water into the hands of quangos. Last Thursday, more than 97 per cent. of the people of Monklands, East rejected the Government and their policies as well, giving the Government their worst election result in any parliamentary by-election or election since 1918 when the universal franchise came in. Does the Minister realise that one of the factors contributing to that is the Government's Marie


Antoinette approach to Scottish water? The people of Scotland are clearly saying to the Government that they want water in the hands of local elected people and that unless the Government do that they will continue to be humiliated and punished by the people whom they deny.

Sir Hector Monro: Even by the hon. Gentleman's own standards, that is about as far away from the question on the Order Paper as he could possibly get. After all that has happened in the past three weeks, I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should have raised the subject of Monklands at all. I should have thought that he would go into purdah and shut up for the next couple of years, and see just how much work his party has to do to bring democratic government back into local government in Scotland.

Outdoor Education Centres

Mr. Jamieson: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received regarding safety at outdoor education centres.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): My right hon. Friend has received no recent representations on safety at outdoor education centres. He is, however, fully aware of the action that has followed the canoeing tragedy in Lyme Bay, Dorset. In particular, the Government's response to that incident—including new guidance on safety at outdoor activity centres—extends to Scotland.

Mr. Jamieson: Is the Minister aware that every year thousands of children in Scotland attend outdoor education centres and undertake potentially hazardous activities? What guidelines have been given to schools in Scotland and what measures have been taken to accredit and inspect the centres to ensure that children's lives are not put at risk?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's concerns. I can confirm that guidance is likely to be published in the late summer and is intended to supplement the existing guidance, "Safety in Outdoor Education," which was published in 1989.
The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to learn that there are reports this morning that Grampian regional council has issued its own guidance to keep it up to date. I am very pleased that it has done that, and I am sure that it will be of value to schools in the region. I hope that other local authorities will do that as well. We do not want an excess of guidance, but we will ensure that the best possible guidance is put in place. The Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), is pursuing a campaign of safety in relation to mountaineering and hill and mountain safety.

Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill

Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his latest estimate of the extra cost to be incurred by Government sources as a result of alterations in the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill between the Bill as presented at First Reading and its current state.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): The Government have

incurred no significant costs as a result of alterations made to the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill since its introduction.

Mr. Dalyell: In the light of the Rowntree study, which showed that the economies of scale in education would be disaggregated, are the Government quite certain that there will be no increase in service delivery costs?

Mr. Stewart: I have made the figures absolutely clear, and the changes that the Government have made since the introduction have been widely welcomed. I quote the views of West Lothian district council in the hon. Gentleman's constituency:
The new structure of local government must combine democracy and efficiency. A new West Lothian Council would strike exactly the right balance. It would also lend itself to a quick and economical transition, thus maintaining the continuity of service which is vital to both citizens, business and partner organisations.
It was to those representations that the Government rightly listened.

Mr. Bates: What assessment has my hon. Friend made of the additional savings that will result from the Bill's provision for the abolition of Monklands district council? In particular, has he received any representations from the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Wray), who stated in The Herald on 30 June that he had seen figures which proved the existence of corruption? Does my hon. Friend agree that if those figures were made available to him we could arrange an inquiry into the matter of corruption, which seems to be gaining all-party recognition?

Mr. Stewart: If anyone has evidence that Monklands district council—or any other local authority in Scotland—is in breach of its statutory responsibilities, of course the Government will look into it. I have received no representations from Opposition Members seeking a meeting, but if the hon. Member for Monklands, East (Mrs. Liddell) or the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) wishes to seek a joint meeting with me, I have no doubt that such a meeting would be an entertaining and interesting occasion.

Mr. Canavan: Will the Government now do the decent thing and abandon their expensive and unwanted carve-up of Scottish local government? Would it not show absolute contempt for the wishes of the people of Scotland if a Tory Government proceeded with such gerrymandering plans, especially after the Tories were so resoundingly defeated in the recent regional elections and were virtually annihilated in the Monklands by-election?

Mr. Stewart: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman consult his own district council, Falkirk, which I understand is very content with the Government's proposals.

Mr. Riddick: Does my hon. Friend agree that any extra costs resulting from the Bill and associated with the abolition of Monklands district council will be money well spent? Do not the revelations of corruption, nepotism and dubious job practices in Monklands during the recent by-election vindicate Conservative Members who have pointed to the corruption in that council? How many other Labour councils in Scotland are getting up to similar shenanigans?

Mr. Stewart: The short answer is that I do not know. The Scottish Office cannot take action simply because a


local authority may indulge in practices that others would criticise; we can act only if a council is in breach of its statutory responsibilities.

Sir David Steel: To return to the main question, can the Minister tell us whether he included in his calculation of the cost of the local government changes the cost of providing in every centre of population the all-purpose offices that will be necessary in areas such as the Borders if local government is to continue to have any meaning at all?

Mr. Stewart: I certainly hope that there will not be huge all-purpose offices in the centres of all the new local authorities—for the very good reason that at the centre of our local government proposals is an emphasis on decentralisation of facilities rather than centralisation. Of course some costs may be incurred, but there will also be savings. The figures published by the Government take no account, for instance, of receipts from property sales.

Mr. Foulkes: Will the Minister confirm that he has received a deputation and a request from members and employees of Kyle and Carrick district council? This is the real scandal in Scottish local government. The authority is now re-tendering a contract for cleansing and refuse collection which still had three weeks to run, and it has been discovered that the provost of Kyle and Carrick had five secret meetings with a Spanish contracting company before making the decision. That is the kind of corruption that is taking place in Tory-controlled Kyle and Carrick. The Minister has received a request for an inquiry: when will he conduct one?

Mr. Stewart: I must say that that remark was pretty racist from a party that is supposed to be "communautaire". Did not the favourite for the leadership of the Opposition recently say that it was communautaire? [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] I shall answer the question as soon as hon. Members give me an opportunity to do so.
I met the delegation led by the hon. Gentleman, and I listened courteously and carefully to the points that were made. I told the hon. Gentleman that, prior to that meeting, we had had no evidence whatever of wrongdoing by Kyle and Carrick district council, but that I would examine the evidence which the hon. Gentleman put to me and write to him. That remains the position.

Mr. McLeish: While the Minister sits back and enjoys his hypocrisy and complacency—

Madam Speaker: Order. There is no hypocrisy in this House. Will the hon. Gentleman rephrase what he has just said?

Mr. McLeish: While the Minister sits back and enjoys his complacency over allegations of corruption, does he accept that the time scale for the implementation of reorganisation proposals is simply a shambles? Does he accept that if he proceeds with the timetable services will be destroyed, jobs will be lost and local government will lose a great deal that it has built up over the past 30 years? In view of the result in Monklands last week, is there not some political merit for the Tories in abandoning the elections next year and returning to the real problems facing local government? Why does the Minister not

announce today that there will be a year's delay? Better still, why does he not scrap such crazy, ill-conceived proposals?

Mr. Stewart: The timetable is almost the same as for the last reorganisation of local government in Scotland, when some difficulties arose during that period—notably a coal strike and a general election, neither of which we envisage happening between now and the elections for the shadow authorities next year. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should consult Fife regional council—his own Labour-controlled council—which estimates that the Government's proposals will save £68 million over 15 years. Moreover, it has made no representations to the Government suggesting that it is anything other than happy with the proposals.

Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In view of the evasive nature of the Minister's answers, I hope to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Scottish Nuclear

Mr. Eric Clarke: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with Scottish Nuclear on its expansion proposals for nuclear electricity generating capacity.

Mr. Stewart: As Scottish Nuclear has no plans to expand its nuclear generating capacity, my right hon. Friend has naturally not discussed the subject with it.

Mr. Clarke: Will the Minister take it from me that moves are afoot to expand the nuclear industry? I am surprised at the answer that I have just received. Does he recognise that more than 50 per cent. of the electricity industry's generating capacity in Scotland is through nuclear power, which is extremely inefficient as it costs Scottish people more than alternative forms of energy? When he meets Scottish Nuclear about its expansion, will he recognise the fact that a question mark hangs over environmental arguments and the decommissioning of Hunterston A before he grants permission for any type of expansion? A moratorium would be better. I hope that the Minister will join me in ensuring that the people of Scotland are not penalised further because of the folly of nuclear power in their area.

Mr. Stewart: A large number of people, not just on this side of the House, would disagree with the hon. Gentleman's views. There are no plans for an expansion of nuclear-generated capacity. There is interest in replacement of Hunterston B, but that is a different matter. I should make it clear that the Government are committed to the nuclear option, provided that it can prove economic. One of Scotland's great benefits is the variety of sources of supply to its electricity generation industry.

Mr. Gallie: Does my hon. Friend agree that Scottish Nuclear is built on success in electricity generation? Does he also agree that, given the restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions, an adequate and cost-effective supply of energy resources in Scotland will depend largely on the nuclear resource if Scotland's economic future is to be secure?

Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point to the importance of nuclear energy for Scottish industry and Scottish consumers. Scottish Nuclear Ltd. plans to increase its output by 18 per cent. by 1998 and to


control costs—wholly consistently with safety, of course. The contribution that SNL has made to electricity generation is one of which all Scotland should be proud.

Mr. Hood: The Minister will know that thousands of Scottish children travel from school to visit nuclear power station exhibition centres, and they do so in minibuses and coaches. When do the Government intend to bring forward legislation to make seat belts compulsory to protect our children—

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is on totally the wrong question. In that case, we shall now move on.

Unemployment

Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the change in the numbers unemployed in Scotland since December 1992.

Mr. Stewart: Since December 1992, the number of seasonally adjusted unemployed in Scotland has fallen by 17,100.

Mr. Marshall: As unemployment throughout the European Community has increased by 1.5 million during that time, will my hon. Friend consider holding a seminar at one of Scotland's ancient universities—preferably the university of St. Andrews—at which he could point out that deregulation and modern labour relations create jobs while a minimum wage and the social chapter destroy jobs?

Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out that the United Kingdom is clearly coming out of the recession ahead of most of the rest of the European Community. As regards seminars, I recently addressed a seminar in Glasgow on the European Community's White Paper, where I made precisely some of the valid points that my hon. Friend has mentioned about Britain's economic success.

Mr. Wray: Does the Minister agree with me that, like the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Bates), he is misleading the Scottish people and misleading the House by giving those figures? Does he also agree that the 249,000 figure of December 1992 is the peak figure, although it is 17,100 lower? Why did he not take the August 1990 figure of 197,000, which is the lowest figure? Does he agree that the figure is 34,700 higher than that?

Hon. Members: Now answer that.

Mr. Stewart: The short answer is that the question was:
what is the change in the numbers unemployed in Scotland since December 1992",
and I gave the figure in answer to that question. I hope that the hon. Gentleman, and all hon. Members, will recognise that unemployment in Scotland is falling, and will continue to fall. [Interruption.] Opposition Members obviously do not like the fact that unemployment is falling. I am disappointed that they take such a completely negative attitude to the evidence of Scotland's economic success.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Will my hon. Friend reflect on the fact that we still have very low strike rates in the United Kingdom? Does he believe that Scottish unemployment is decreasing because the Scottish work force in the main refused to strike? Will he, therefore, make it clear to hon.

Members in all parts of the House that the condoning of strike action, from wherever it comes, should be condemned from all parts of the House?

Mr. Stewart: I agree with my hon. Friend. All the evidence from inward investment work clearly shows the importance that firms from north America and the far east attach to Scotland's excellent industrial relations. We have a superb and skilled work force in Scotland, as our inward investment record demonstrates.

Mr. Donohoe: How many changes have there been to the calculations on unemployment figures since the Government came to power in 1979? If the Minister was able to calculate the figures on the basis that he is suggesting from 1992, could he confirm that the total would be about double that which he suggests?

Mr. Stewart: What I do know is that all the Labour Governments in history have ended up with unemployment higher at the end of their period in office than at the beginning. The hon. Gentleman clearly will not face up to the fact that unemployment in Scotland, which of course is high, is below that of the United Kingdom average for the first time since the 1920s. Unemployment there is falling at a time when it is not falling in the rest of the European Community.

Mr. Welsh: Does the Minister agree that adult training is crucial to overcoming unemployment? Why are no adult training places available in Angus and Dundee? Why are existing places under threat? Why is adult training not a priority for the Government?

Mr. Stewart: Of course, places are available. There is a further education college in Dundee. Adult training is a priority of the Government, which is why we are giving £200 million to the Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise network to provide the resources for adult training in Scotland.

Pollution, Clyde Estuary

Mr. Graham: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has to arrange for the clearing up of pollution on the foreshores of the Clyde estuary.

Sir Hector Monro: Responsibility for cleaning beaches lies with district or islands councils.

Mr. Graham: Will the Minister borrow a small canoe and paddle up the River Clyde to see the pollution in the water and the dereliction? He will come to the Erskine bridge. A recent paper stated that the bridge is crumbling and my constituents are worried that it may not be safe. Will the Minister give the House and my constituents an assurance that the bridge will be made safe? Will he make a public announcement on the present state of the bridge?

Sir Hector Monro: I would rather paddle down the river than up it. The hon. Gentleman makes a serious point, but it is far removed from my sphere of responsibility. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), who is responsible for the bridge and for roads in Scotland, will have heard the exchange, and I am sure that if action needs to be taken, he will take it.

Mr. McAvoy: The Minister is aware that chromium waste dumping sites in Cambuslang, Rutherglen and Toryglen pollute water courses that flow into the River


Clyde, and that contamination ends up in the Clyde estuary. The Secretary of State has said that no resources will be made available to clear up those contaminated waste sites in my constituency. Bearing in mind the fact that the public health board has said that the situation is potentially risky and the fact that the Secretary of State has refused to help because he is looking for evidence, will the Minister tell me what evidence will satisfy the Secretary of State? Is he waiting for someone to die?

Sir Hector Monro: The hon. Gentleman must not put it like that. He has had meetings with the Secretary of State and me, and he knows that discussions have taken place and are taking place on how to deal with that serious issue. There is no doubt that action will have to be taken, whether through the enterprise company, the region or the district—the problem must be resolved. I assure him that the Scottish Office will play a full part in trying to find the right solution.

Community Care

Mr. Robert Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he intends to conduct a review of community care in Scotland.

Mr. Stewart: We continually monitor and review the progress of the operation of community care in Scotland. A major evaluation and research project is being undertaken at Stirling university.

Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware of the great anguish and anxiety caused when trusts publish business plans stating how many people are to be discharged into the community and which hostels are to be closed, but make no mention of how the care is to be provided?
Would not it be more sensible to publish a patient plan in conjunction with the authorities that will provide patient care and, in tandem, produce a business plan showing how the costs of the whole package will be met? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that until that is done and until there is a sensible way of planning and operating community care, there should be no hospital closures in Scotland?

Mr. Stewart: I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's concern about these matters, which he raised in the Scottish Grand Committee yesterday. First, a business plan is an essential starting point. Secondly, like the hon. Gentleman, I believe that close co-operation with local authorities is very important, and we have a working party studying that. Thirdly, no hospital can be closed until after a period of public consultation and after a submission to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

Mr. Bill Walker: When my hon. Friend and his colleagues are consulting, will they consider Meigle cottage hospital and the proposal to turn it into a day-care centre? If, on examining that proposal, it is found that its capital and revenue costs, especially transporting people long distances to the hospital, are the same as, or greater than, the cost of maintaining the hospital as it is, will my hon. Friend review the decision to close it?

Mr. Stewart: It is no great surprise to hear my hon. Friend raise the issue of Meigle cottage hospital. I reassure him that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, my

right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State and I will keep the position at Meigle under the closest review and scrutiny.

Mrs. Fyfe: Does the Minister realise that his avowed concern for these matters is somewhat less than convincing because earlier this year he admitted that he did not know the number of people paying the full cost of accommodation in residential care and nursing homes, or how many people had sold their homes to meet the charges for their residential care? Is the hon. Gentleman any better informed now?
Will the Minister, before it is too late, consider the impact of the break-up of the social work departments on this and other aspects of community care? It is a consequence of his tearing apart of Scottish local authorities to meet the Government's narrow political ends.

Mr. Stewart: We regularly collect and publish a whole range of statistics on community care as part of the monitoring process. Inspections are carried out by the social work services inspectorate and the reviews by the NHS management executive.
I do not for a moment accept the hon. Lady's views on the consequences of local government reform. A single-tier system will be a great deal more sensible. There are enormous advantages in, for example, having social work and housing services in the same authority.

Mr. Kynoch: Does my hon. Friend agree that the principle of care in the community is commendable? Does he further agree that to keep the elderly and mentally sick in normal conditions in the community for as long as possible is better than institutionalising them and putting them in hospital? Will my hon. Friend join me in commending Grampian health care trust on its business plan, although it is only an outline plan? It not only includes, sadly, proposals to close some hospitals, but—this is something that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) did not mention—plans for significant capital expenditure on new hospital provision for those who have to remain in hospital, so that they can have even better care.

Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend is right. The trust's plan includes considerable capital expenditure. The objective is not simply to maintain, but to improve the standards of patient care.

Housing

Mr. McKelvey: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will meet the chairman of Scottish Homes to discuss disposal of housing stock.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has already issued guidance to Scottish Homes on the procedure for the disposal of housing stock. He has no plans to meet the chairman of Scottish Homes to discuss that further.

Mr. McKelvey: You will be as appalled as I am by that answer, Madam Speaker, when you hear that Scottish Homes held a meeting last week and invited only selected tenants to discuss the disposal of the property. Democratically elected members of tenants associations, residents associations and district councils, and even the


local Member of Parliament, were debarred from that meeting, presumably because Scottish Homes thought that they might impose some evil influence on its decision. The Minister will be surprised to hear that those selected tenants unanimously rejected the association that Scottish Homes hoped they would adopt and said that they wanted unfettered—

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is now making a statement, which is quite unfair. There are many questions on the Order Paper and unless questions and answers are brisk, many Scottish Members will be disappointed. I am asking for a direct question and a brisk answer.

Mr. McKelvey: I take the point, Madam Speaker, but I am seriously concerned about this business. Will the Minister, therefore, direct Scottish Homes to give all Scottish tenants a free and unfettered choice in their future landlords?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: At the end of the day, if a majority of tenants wish to remain in the public sector, they will have the opportunity to do so through the ballot paper and by voting to remain with Scottish Homes. As for the meeting that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, I understand that owner-occupiers were not dealt with in exactly the same way as tenants. Owner-occupiers have an interest in the proposed new landlords and they are entitled to attend public meetings. Representatives of a residents association, representing tenants and owner-occupiers, would have access to the tenants' independent adviser. Unlike tenants, an owner-occupier will not be entitled to vote in the ballot as a tenant because a home owner's landlord is himself or herself.

Mr. Wilson: Will the Minister give me one good reason why tenants of Scottish Homes in my constituency who wish to become tenants of the local authority should be prevented from doing so?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The current arrangements do not preclude a local authority from presenting proposals to acquire Scottish Homes stock. In special circumstances, that option can be put forward, as it was in the case of Berwickshire. Those special circumstances would include, first, the number of properties involved; secondly, their location; and, thirdly, the percentage of houses already held by the local authority. In Kilmarnock and Loudoun, some 44 per cent. of houses are in the public sector, which is substantially higher than the national average. It is our aim to have more choice and diversity in housing stock.

Konver Initiative

Ms Rachel Squire: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the Konver initiative; and what funding he proposes to make available to local authorities to progress economic development.

Mr. Stewart: Scotland received more than £1.7 million from the first Konver initiative, which ran as a one-year programme in 1993. The European Commission is in the process of issuing guidelines for the next round of Community initiatives, including a second Konver programme.

Ms Squire: Does the Minister agree that the Government should introduce a national strategy for defence diversification if any progress is to be made in economic development in areas that depend heavily on defence-related activities, such as Fife, which has the highest unemployment rate in Scotland and where we have lost 4,000 jobs at Rosyth in the past three years? Does he further agree that no EC initiative could replace the 8,000 jobs that depend on Rosyth's future? Will he say clearly today that he supports Rosyth and will he link his future to that of the naval base and to those 8,000 jobs?

Mr. Stewart: On the second question, the hon. Lady knows that no decision has been made on the future of the naval base, as well as the other establishments being reviewed under "Front Line First". She will know that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence is to make a statement before the House rises for the summer recess.
As for the hon. Lady's main question on a defence initiative, we do have a Scottish defence initiative which has been implemented in particular by two local enterprise companies—Fife Enterprise and the Glasgow Development Agency. They have developed several programmes to reduce the impact of defence reductions, aimed mainly at diversification and support for redundant workers. For example, under the new product development programme they have assisted more than 850 people from more than 50 companies. I assure the hon. Lady—indeed, she may know this from her own contacts—that Fife Enterprise has close relationships with important key companies in the sector and is developing a range of specific initiatives.

Mr. Fabricant: My hon. Friend is to be congratulated on the Locate in Scotland programme, which has attracted firms such as Hoover, Motorola and Mitsubishi. But does he agree that the distance between Scotland and the centre of gravity of Europe puts it at a great disadvantage? Is it not therefore even more amazing that freight transport from Scotland to the rest of Europe is being disrupted today by the rail strike—[interruption.]—and is it not even more surprising that the Opposition Front Bench—

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must relate what he says more to the original question. Will the Minister answer the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question?

Mr. Stewart: rose—

Mr. McLeish: Does he remember it?

Mr. Stewart: Yes, I remember it. My hon. Friend is right to stress the importance of transport links between Scotland and Europe. That is why the Eurofreight terminal in Mossend is important, as is the open skies policy pursued by the Government. My hon. Friend is also right to say that Scotland is an extremely attractive location for multinational companies, which make their decisions wholly objectively. The recent figures from Locate in Scotland amply prove that.

Dr. Reid: In keeping with the spirit of the times, would any of the candidates at the hustings for the post of Secretary of State for Scotland like to dissociate himself from the treacherous betrayal of Rosyth by the two previous Secretaries of State? The present Secretary of State—the incumbent for the time being—has failed to lift


a finger for Rosyth, and the previous Secretary of State, now Secretary of State for Defence, has physically presided over the impending closure of Rosyth? Why should anyone in Rosyth or in the rest of Scotland who is interested in jobs or in the defence of Scotland and the rest of Britain ever trust whoever succeeds the present incumbent?

Mr. Stewart: Such personal attacks are unbecoming to the hon. Gentleman and are wholly without foundation. I suggest that he awaits the statement by the Secretary of State for Defence.

Mr. George Robertson: Is it just possible that the Secretary of State might manage to take time out from the royal pageant in Edinburgh to consider the future of Her Majesty's naval base at Rosyth, or has he completely given up the fight to save it? May I tell the Minister, who seems to be standing in for the absent Secretary of State today, that if the Government do not listen to the defence case and the human case for—[HON. MEMBERS: "He is taking some advice."] Obviously the parliamentary private secretary is giving the Minister advice. Let us hope that it is the right advice—although if I were the Minister I would rather accept advice from somebody else. If the Government do not listen to the defence case and the human case for the Rosyth naval base, and act on it, they will be roundly condemned all over the country. If they do not fight for the base, they will betray the defence of Britain and the thousands of people whose livelihoods depend on Rosyth. If they do not care about Rosyth and the people connected with it, they will be swept away—and swept away for a generation.

Mr. Stewart: Of course, the Secretary of State for Scotland is in touch with the Secretary of State for Defence on matters affecting Scotland. Naturally, there is constant communication on such matters. I must tell Opposition Members that I find it astonishing that a party that historically has favoured cutting defence expenditure year after year, with manifesto commitment after manifesto commitment, now wants very high expenditure on defence. But of course the matter is of concern. That is why, for example, I understand that yesterday my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence met a delegation from Fife accompanied by my hon. Friends the Members for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) and for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker)

Skill Shortages

Mr. Worthington: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about skill shortages in Scotland.

Mr. Stewart: It is primarily for business to identify and provide the skills and associated training which it requires for success in today's global marketplace. The substantial funding given to Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise enables them to assist businesses and individuals to acquire skills which will benefit the economy of Scotland.

Mr. Worthington: The short answer is that the Minister knows nothing at all about skill shortages in Scotland, and he admits that in his parliamentary answers to my questions. He referred me to Scottish Enterprise. Scottish Enterprise wrote to me and said that it does not

collect information on skill shortages in Scotland. How can the Minister give assurances that all is well, when neither he nor Scottish Enterprise has a clue about skill shortages in Scotland?

Mr. Stewart: I can tell the hon. Gentleman one figure, if he is interested. It is from the latest CBI industrial trends survey, in which the percentage of respondents quoting shortages of skilled or other labour as a constraint on investment was precisely zero.

Mr. McLeish: Is that all the Minister has got?

Mr. Stewart: If the hon. Gentleman will give me a moment, I shall tell him. May I, in particular, refer the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) and other hon. Members to the clear strategy set out by Scottish Enterprise last week?

Mr. Worthington: It does not mention skill shortages.

Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman says that it does not mention skills. He obviously has not read the document. The document lays great stress on Scotland's skills and knowledge base as the greatest single source of competitive advantage. In that context, Scottish Enterprise aims to improve and develop the national training schemes which it delivers to combine development of appropriate skills with placing people in work to stimulate and help articulate demand for skills from businesses and individuals. However, of course, the bulk of training is and will continue to be carried out by companies themselves. That is the point which the hon. Gentleman appears not to appreciate.

Mr. Dickens: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Locate in Scotland campaign has been so successful that £5 billion has either been invested or planned to be invested and that that has created jobs for or retrained 96,000 people in Scotland? But, returning to the skill shortages, 47 per cent. of all companies from overseas who have located in Scotland conduct research and development. That is where the skills come from and it is time that Scottish Opposition Members woke up to that.

Mr. Stewart: I agree with my hon. Friend, but I fear that he is being optimistic if he thinks that Opposition Members will ever find it in themselves to say anything good about what happens in Scotland. My hon. Friend is right to point to the success of Locate in Scotland, which had a record year last year. I pay tribute to the dedicated staff of Locate in Scotland for all their work. Again and again, potential inward investors say to us that one of the great attractions of Scotland is—[HON. MEMBERS: "The golf courses."] It is not the golf courses. One of the great attractions is the skilled and dedicated work force that is available.

Mrs. Adams: If the Minister insists that the largest amount of training is done in industries in Scotland, will he take my word for it that Rolls-Royce in my constituency, which was one of the great trainers of apprentices in Scotland, has, in the past six years, trained six apprentice engineers, the last of whom finished a year ago? There are now no new apprenticeships at Rolls-Royce in Hillington. Will the Minister produce his evidence and tell us how many industrial apprenticeships there are in Scotland?

Mr. Stewart: Is the hon. Lady seriously suggesting that the number of apprentices is an appropriate measurement


of the total training undertaken by British industry? That is absurd. Employers in Britain spend more than £20 billion a year on employee training and development. The comparable figure for Scotland is about £2 billion a year. That is a measure of Scottish companies' commitment to training of all sorts.

Fisheries

Mr. Bellingham: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations he has received from fishermen's organisations regarding the use of drift nets; and if he will make a statement.

Sir Hector Monro: I receive frequent representations from those concerned about the drift net fishery for salmon off the coast of north-east England. The matter of drift net fisheries was discussed at the last Fisheries Council.

Mr. Bellingham: Will my hon. Friend find time today to recognise the important economic contribution of angling to the rural communities of Scotland? Will he pay tribute to the fact that in Scotland drift net fishing for salmon has been almost entirely curtailed? Does he agree that the Northumberland drift net fishery, which catches almost exclusively salmon heading for Scottish rivers, is an anomaly and a disgrace, and that, after proper compensation to the netsmen, it should be stopped?

Sir Hector Monro: I agree with my hon. Friend that salmon fishing in Scotland is of enormous importance to the community in that it brings tourism and business for hotels and shops, for example. We want to see as many anglers coming to Scotland as possible. My hon. Friend is right also to say that we banned drift net fishing many years ago around the Scottish coast. The issue of the north-east drift net fishery is complicated and it is difficult to be precise when discussing it.
We have, as my hon. Friend knows, introduced a net limitation order and the number of licences for salmon nets has fallen by 12.7 per cent. in the past year. That is a step in the right direction. We must move on the basis of scientific advice, which is provided by the National Rivers Authority. I have my hon. Friend's point very much in mind, and I hope that one of these days we shall find the right solution.

Mr. Macdonald: Can the Minister justify and explain why it is right for monofilament nets to be used by English fishermen in English coastal waters but not by Scottish fishermen in Scottish coastal waters?

Sir Hector Monro: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the use of such nets has been banned in Scotland for many years. We feel that that is the right step to take, bearing in mind the conservation of fish as well as the power of catching. I believe that we have come to the right decision. It is not always accepted by fishermen, especially those on the west coast, but throughout the rest of Scotland it is generally believed that we have made the right decision.

Governance of Scotland

Mr. Trimble: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on developments relating to the governance of Scotland since the publication of "Scotland in the Union: A Partnership for Good".

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: We have pressed ahead vigorously to implement the various proposals in the White Paper "Scotland in the Union: A Partnership for Good", published last year. All the commitments have either been implemented or are well in hand.

Mr. Trimble: Does the Minister agree that earlier supplementary questions suggest that Labour will revert to cover-up and bluster rather than taking the opportunity to clean out the Augean stables that exist in its organisation in the Greater Glasgow area? Does he further agree that the recent election result shows that there is an urgent need for the creation of a moderate, right-of-centre, pro-Union alternative to Labour, which the present Conservative and Liberal Democratic parties cannot provide, and that without such an alternative the outlook for Scottish politics is not encouraging?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's sturdy support of the Union of Great Britain. The Conservative party stood on that platform before the last general election and the number of Conservative Members increased as a result. We will continue to fight as hard as we can for the Union on every conceivable occasion. The proposals in the White Paper strengthen the Union between Scotland and England. The Standing Order changes that are proposed will be introduced early next Session after being debated and we look forward to Scotland benefiting greatly from the changes. We will bear in mind the problems in relation to Greater Glasgow that the hon. Member has mentioned.

Mr. Connarty: Does the Minister accept that the whole concept of the White Paper has been made ludicrous in the eyes of the people of Scotland because of the growing number of quangos and the fact that the Secretary of State appoints all those people who are answerable only to him? With regard to health, the quango is answerable to a health Minister who is in another place and who has not even been elected, having been rejected by the people of Scotland. How can the people of Scotland give any credibility to any movement in "Scotland in the Union: A Partnership for Good" until we get rid of the quangos and put elected people in responsible positions in Scotland?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am astonished that the hon. Gentleman has the nerve to ask a question of that nature when the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland served on the Scottish tourist board, the Scottish Development Agency and on a third quango relating to the police. We have considerably reduced the number of quangos throughout Britain and that is greatly to our credit. However, where there is a need for them—for example, Scottish Homes—they will, of course, survive in the public interest.

Madam Speaker: Time is up. I call the Secretary of State for National Heritage to make his statement.

Mr. David Clelland: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: I take points of order after statements.

BBC

The Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Peter Brooke): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the future of the BBC.
I am today publishing a White Paper with the Government's policies for the BBC's role and operations after December 1996, when its present royal charter expires. A copy of the White Paper, with a user-friendly summary, will be available in the Vote Office when I have finished speaking.
In developing these policies, we have been able to take account of advice, ideas and comments from a wide variety of sources. We had the replies from many organisations and individuals to the Government's consultation document, published in November 1992. I am grateful to everyone who wrote to us, and especially to those who arranged conferences and seminars so that the issues could be discussed. The BBC put forward its own views about its future, which provided a useful focus for public debate, and it has continued to develop its proposals, taking account of the debate about its future and changes in the world of broadcasting.
We also had the benefit of the National Heritage Select Committee's report, "The Future of the BBC", which was published in December last year. The Committee took evidence from a large number of interested parties. The White Paper includes the Government's response to the Select Committee's report and its recommendations. I have, of course, not yet had time to consider the Select Committee's report entitled "Sports Sponsorship and Television Coverage" which was published earlier today.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: The right hon. Member had better hurry up; he will not be here next week.

Mr. Brooke: The Select Committee's views on listed events and subscription channels have attracted a great deal of interest and the Government will take careful note of them. The White Paper acknowledges that the present restrictions are necessary and that there are arguments for strengthening them.
Our consultation document made it clear that the Government saw a continuing role for the BBC as the major public service broadcaster in the United Kingdom. But new opportunities are being created by technological developments. The Government believe that the BBC is well placed to evolve into an international multi-media enterprise, building on its present commercial services in this country and overseas. We will do all we can to encourage this process.
The responses to our consultation document showed that there is considerable public support for the wide range and diversity of the programmes and services which the BBC provides for audiences throughout the United Kingdom. However, public support for the BBC would diminish unless the corporation could demonstrate that it was cost-effective.
The BBC has, in the last few years, set in hand extensive, and often painful, measures to improve its efficiency, reducing its overheads and reorganising its operations. It is in the midst of a difficult process of modernisation, which the Government expect to continue in the years ahead. The results so far are encouraging. As

a broadcaster, the BBC has been able to invest over £100 million more in programmes. As an organisation, it can face the future with more flexibility and with a clearer view of how its various activities contribute to fulfilling its strategic purpose—to provide broadcast services of information, entertainment and education.
In the light of that, the Government will recommend that the BBC should be granted a new royal charter for a term of 10 years from January 1997. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] A new agreement between the Government and the BBC would govern its operations; that would replace the present licence and agreement.
The new royal charter will set out the responsibilities of the governors and the national councils in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The board of governors will have a strategic oversight of the BBC's activities and management. The governors and the national councils will have a special responsibility for ensuring that the BBC's services reflect the interests and needs of the public throughout the country, and for improving the BBC's accountability to its audiences and to Parliament.
Within the United Kingdom, the BBC should continue to take a lead in programme making and to provide its present television and radio services. Those will be funded from the licence fee, at least for the time being. The Select Committee, after considering all the options, concluded that the licence fee was the best available method of funding the BBC's services. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] The Government agree with the Committee's view. However, we propose that there should be a review of funding from the licence fee before the year 2001 in the light of technological and other changes.
The BBC will, of course, continue to be editorially independent and we shall expect it to maintain high standards in all its programming. Like other broadcasters, it will continue to have obligations to observe due impartiality on controversial issues—

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: You must be joking.

Mr. Brooke: —and to ensure that programmes do not encourage crime or offend against good taste, decency or public feeling.
Overseas, the BBC will continue to broadcast World Service radio, financed by grant in aid from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. That service has more than 130 million listeners and it is widely recognised for the reliability and accuracy of its news. That reputation is an asset of great value, both culturally and commercially. The Government consider that the BBC should be encouraged to exploit further its commercial potential.
The main changes that we propose for the future, therefore, are aimed at the development of the BBC's commercial activities, particularly its international television services. As the Select Committee recognised, a new and expanding global market is opening up for broadcasting services. Broadcasting has been transformed from a mainly national to an international activity. Moreover, broadcasting, as we have known it, is likely to become only one strand in an international media market, which will include some services and products which combine elements of different media—sound, pictures and text—allowing users to decide which they prefer.
Those developments will greatly extend the variety and choice available to everyone in this country and elsewhere.


The BBC is well placed to take advantage of that growing international market. It is well known internationally; it has highly skilled production staff, a large production capacity and considerable programme archives, and it has experience of operating commercially at home and abroad.
However, we should not risk licence payers' or taxpayers' money on commercial ventures. That is why we have encouraged the BBC to forge new partnerships with the private sector. In that way, it can take advantage of the private finance initiative and of the commercial expertise of its private sector partners. Understandably, the BBC is anxious that those partnerships should allow the BBC to keep editorial control over its programmes. That will help it to protect its brand name, which is recognised worldwide.
The Government believe that the BBC should compete commercially, but it must also compete fairly. The BBC has published a commitment to fair trading and it is preparing detailed guidelines. We shall want to examine those guidelines closely and ensure that they are implemented effectively. For that reason, it is essential that its services financed from the licence fee and the grant in aid should be operated separately from its commercial activities.
We are exploring with the BBC various options for the future of its transmission services. Those include privatisation, in full or in part. The BBC is preparing for an early introduction of digital broadcasting services for radio and then for television. Digital technology is more efficient in the use of the frequency spectrum and it opens up the possibility of even more services. It also offers opportunities to United Kingdom manufacturers of equipment and receivers.
The purpose of those studies, which should be completed toward the end of the year, is to seek to combine the early introduction of digital broadcasting services with the advantages of privatisation. Those include the benefits of private sector finance, since the Government do not intend to increase the licence fee to pay for introducing digital services. The Government and the BBC are clear that functions should be kept within the BBC only when there is a compelling reason for doing so.
Although we intend that the BBC should continue to be established by royal charter, a number of the Government's proposals will require legislation. When there is a suitable opportunity, we propose to repeal the provisions in the Broadcasting Act 1990 which prevent the Independent Television Commission and the Radio Authority from licensing services owned or partly owned by the BBC. In future, any commercial broadcasting services operated by the BBC would have to be licensed by the commission or the authority.
More generally, we intend to give the commission and the authority new powers to license and regulate commercial digital television and radio services. Reflecting widespread concern over standards, we also propose to merge the Broadcasting Standards Council and the Broadcasting Complaints Commission. That will provide a clearer focus for the public's complaints about broadcasting services and reduce the number of regulatory bodies.
Madam Speaker, the Government recognise that, in the BBC, the United States—[Interruption.] Madam Speaker,

as I directed that sentence to you, I shall read it again. The Government recognise that, in the BBC, the United Kingdom has an organisation which is a world leader. It makes more programmes than any organisation outside the United States and Japan. Over 99 per cent. of the population of the United Kingdom can receive its services, and most people use them regularly. From the perspective of my Department, no other organisation provides such active and creative patronage of the arts or does so much to make major national and artistic events, and the cultural heritage of the country, accessible to everyone.
In the next 10 years, there are likely to be significant and rapid changes in broadcasting and the media generally. No one can foresee the outcome of those changes, either nationally or internationally, but it is clear that they offer huge opportunities both for the BBC and for other United Kingdom broadcasters.
The Government wish the BBC to be in a position to take advantage of these opportunities. Our policies keep a wide range of options open for the BBC's long-term future. We confirm its role as the United Kingdom's major public service broadcaster, but we are encouraging it to develop into a multi-media enterprise with international interests. That prospect is reflected in the title of our White Paper: "The Future of the BBC: Serving the Nation; Competing World-wide".

Ms Marjorie Mowlam: We thank the Secretary of State for the White Paper. We welcome it. We have had a long wait, but we are glad that it is here at last.
We have never wavered in our support for public service broadcasting, unlike the Government. We believe that for a democracy to flourish, it is crucial to uphold individuals' rights to free expression and information. We believe that the BBC's role is crucial to that—it is central. The BBC is part of our national life and its future should be guaranteed in the way that it is by the White Paper.
We are relieved that the Government have abandoned their calls for privatisation—apart from some age-old Thatcherites in odd parts of the House today. We are pleased that that has been abandoned. We also welcome the continuation of the licence fee, but would appreciate clarification on whether it will be index linked up to the review at the end of the decade.
In a sense, it is sad that the Government have simply gone for the status quo. We would have been more ambitious for the future development and growth of the BBC. We believe that there is a need to respond to the changes that have taken place in Britain since the previous royal charter, and the decline in our shared sense of national identity and community. We would have wanted more in the statement today. [Interruption.] I will give some examples.
Can the Secretary of State tell the House why, in his statement today, he has not encouraged the BBC to continue to do and emphasise what it is good at, which is good-quality programming, especially in education? Today, there was an opportunity to emphasise education, which would have given us the opportunity to have an extra teacher in every classroom and every household in the country. It is sad that that has not happened.
It would be useful if the Secretary of State could tell us why the Government have not made up their mind on the future of transmission services.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: They have.

Ms Mowlam: They have not. I have had only 20 minutes to read the paper, but it is clear that the Government have not made up their mind on transmission services. What they have done is say that there may be a future, there may not; it may be privatised, it may not.
The Opposition want a time limit from the Secretary of State for that discussion. We want a date to be put on that continued question mark over the future of transmission services. The future of the BBC depends on keeping transmission services in house. If digital is to be developed, which is what we would like, it is important for licence fee holders and the BBC to know about that decision sooner rather than later. [HON. MEMBERS: "Question."] Yes, that was the second question.
My third question is why, apart from one throwaway line, did not the Secretary of State reassert the importance of regional programming for Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the English regions? When he talks about regionalism, we want to be sure that he means that the BBC skills base will be located in the regions and that it will not continue the march of the media to London.
The Secretary of State acknowledged the internal changes that have taken place in the BBC. Will he also acknowledge the serious morale problems that it faces as a result of the growth of short-term contracts? It would be valuable if the Secretary of State would emphasise instead the value of staff loyalty, which can result from the stability that long-term contracts bring.
The Secretary of State mentioned streamlining and accountability, and merging the Broadcasting Standards Council with the Broadcasting Complaints Commission—a merger which has already been discussed by those two groups for many months, and we welcome it. Why did he not get to the heart of the question of accountability in the BBC and deal with the appointment and remit of its governors, and with changing the royal charter to an Act of Parliament, to enable an open and transparent debate in the House?
We welcome the right hon. Gentleman's statement about the BBC's worldwide service—a decision which the BBC announced many months ago—but would like further clarification that licence fee money will be kept separate for domestic production, rather than for international growth. [Interruption.] This is the second-last question, for those hon. Members who are getting touchy.
We also want to know why the Government have waited so long before allowing the BBC to compete internationally against dominant players, such as Murdoch's News Corporation. Such folk are already trying to drive British newspapers out of the market with the present price war, and we want to be sure that British broadcasters do not face the same future.
Finally, why, when the Secretary of State just paid lip service to editorial independence, is he not at long last going to lift the ridiculed and discredited broadcasting ban, as the Irish Government have already done?

Mr. Brooke: I thank the hon. Lady for her initial welcoming remarks. She asked a serious of questions, which I will try to answer concisely.
On the licence fee, there will be a review of the formula under which it is calculated, at the time of the new charter in 1997. That will precede the review of the licence fee process, which will be before 2001.
As to the hon. Lady's observation that we have not encouraged the BBC to produce good programmes, I fear that in my statement there was a clear proclamation about the BBC's programme making and, as the hon Lady knows, its commitment to education is age-old.
As to the future of the transmission service, on which the hon. Lady asked a specific question, I said in my statement that consultants would study the matter in conjunction with the BBC, which has acknowledged the possibility that that service will be privatised fully or in part. That analysis and one of the relationship with the digital expansion programme will be conducted during the balance of the year.
On regional programmes and the skills base, the BBC has already announced the extent to which it will move programme making out of London, not only to the other countries of the United Kingdom, but to the other regions of this country.
As to the hon. Lady's question about morale, of course I acknowledge that during a period of management change as rapid as the one the BBC has undergone, there is potential for demoralisation. The management of the process, about which the hon. Lady specifically asked, is a matter for the BBC. Some Government Members were disappointed that one or two members of the Labour party were not prepared to cross picket lines the other day. Whether her question in this instance is asked on behalf of the Broadcasting, Entertainment, Cinematograph and Theatre Union is something which the hon. Lady may clarify later.
As to accountability, the White Paper makes quite clear the separation of the role of the governors from the act of governance and the avoidance of their getting involved in management. The hon. Lady will know that she finds common cause in seeking an Act of Parliament with a number of my hon. Friends in this Chamber and noble Friends in another place. They might find common cause with her on grounds other than her own, but she will know that if we were to have such a debate on an Act of Parliament, it would range fairly wide.
As to separate accounting, I said that the BBC has published its fair trading commitment, and it is due to publish further details. I said in my statement that the Government will be analysing and scrutinising those closely when they come.
The hon. Lady asked why the BBC was not allowed to compete earlier. I am not sure to what she was alluding in saying that there was a restraint upon the BBC. I shall simply remark about her article in The Independent—newly minted this very day—that she addressed a number of issues which people in other places were thinking about at least two years ago.
Finally, the hon. Lady asked about the Irish issue. As I said in my last parliamentary answer on the subject, it is a matter which is kept under review.

Mr. Tim Renton: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement to the House today? May I congratulate him, too, on the fact that, at a time of increased speed in technological change in the broadcasting world, he has resisted the temptation of going for too much change in the BBC at this moment? Surely most


people in this country—at a time of vast increases in the number of television and radio channels—welcome the BBC as a sort of friendly rock of ages. They know, and like to know, that they can find Radio 4 in a familiar place on long wave.
What does my right hon. Friend have in mind when he talks about increasing commercial services on the BBC? Is he talking about encouraging more sponsorship of artistic programmes on the BBC? Surely in due course it will be necessary for the streams of revenue from commercial activities to be intermingled with the licence fee. Finally, where does he see the role of the governors as a supervisory body as being different from their present role?

Mr. Brooke: I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for his remarks about the stance that the Government have taken in the White Paper.
The particular expansion of commercial services is clearly intended to take place overseas, but my right hon. Friend will be aware that BBC Enterprises has become more profitable during the past year and there clearly will be some expansion in the United Kingdom.
The role of the governors is reasserted in the White Paper, but, in my response to the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam), I alluded to the fact that the governors are there to provide the overall regulation of the BBC, and are not intended to be involved in a detailed way in management.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: May I welcome the Secretary of State's announcement that he intends to renew the BBC's charter and licence fee? We want a thriving, widely appealing, impartial and vigorously independent BBC which competes in world markets and gives value for money to the licence payers.
Does not the right hon. Gentleman recognise that his proposals for the cosy self-regulation of the BBC by its board of governors do not go far enough? Should not their responsibilities be given to an independent regulator for all television broadcasting which can secure its charter obligations, monitor the operation of the BBC agreement and prevent the possible misuse of the BBC's licence revenues?

Mr. Brooke: The hon. Gentleman asked why we could not have a single independent regulator for all broadcasting. The Government believe that the BBC's public service broadcasting role is better regulated and overseen by a separate regulator or regulators, in the form of the governors, because it is a distinct role. We propose that that should continue.

Mr. David Evennett: Some Conservative Members feel that privatisation is very good for all industries in this country. Can my right hon. Friend tell us why the BBC should be exempt from it? I welcome his statement as far as it goes, but will he consider the whole question of commercial sponsorship for programmes, and also consider ways of improving the BBC's standards for the benefit of all licence payers? A number of my constituents are very concerned about not getting value for money.

Mr. Brooke: The Government ruled out the privatisation of the BBC, for the reason that I gave the hon.
Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan)—its public service broadcasting role. That role is better conducted in its present form, as it has been for the past 70 years.
As for my hon. Friend's more general question, it would be wrong to think that we are engaged in business as usual. What has been said about the BBC, and within the BBC, over the past two or three years has demonstrated that a major revolution has been taking place in the corporation, which the Government have applauded in terms of the results that have been secured.
As for the licence fee, I think that my hon. Friend will find that in many other countries service of such quality is not available for the price that we must pay here.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: I congratulate the Secretary of State on his excellent statement. How could I do otherwise, given that practically everything that he said is contained in our unanimous Select Committee report?
May I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that the extension of 10 years in the BBC charter on which he has decided—in line with the Select Committee's recommendations—must be used by the BBC not simply for "business as usual", but to enable it to reassess its role and realign itself in the new contexts of media presentation and technology that will arise during the period concerned? The BBC must either dwindle into a low—audience, public broadcasting service or become what the Secretary of State has rightly said that it should become—an international multi—media enterprise.
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the partnership that the BBC has already arranged with Pearsons, and its approach to the large American media company Cox Enterprises, are part of the way forward, but that the BBC needs to associate itself with a large telecommunications company such as British Telecom so that it can become a major international player in the media game? While protecting the public service ethos for which the BBC stands, such a partnership could help it to take part in the great and exciting future that is opening up for the people of this country in entertainment, education and information.

Mr. Brooke: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the welcome that he gave my statement. He took a slightly selective view in saying that we had agreed with every single recommendation made by the Select Committee; but we were not an enormous distance away from it.
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman about the BBC's use of the next 10 years, but I think that he will agree that what has happened over the past two or three years has provided it with a springboard for the kind of thinking that he envisages. I shall not comment in substance on his remark about telecommunications, but the convergence in technologies with which he is familiar will drive media organisations such as the BBC in the direction of telecommunications.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: It is not often that I can say that I fully support a statement made by my right hon. Friend. Does he accept that the British Broadcasting Corporation has the finest reputation in the world as a broadcasting medium? The independent television companies do not wish the British Broadcasting Corporation to be privatised and to advertise; the proposals


in my right hon. Friend's statement give it the greatest opportunity that it has ever been given. Although I cannot speak for the all-party media group, which I have the honour to chair, because we have not yet taken a poll, I am sure that the group would fully endorse what my right hon. Friend has told the House this afternoon.

Mr. Brooke: I do not think that I would be trespassing on the confidentiality of conversations between my hon. Friend and myself if I revealed to the House that, 10 years ago, he told me that I was then the best pairing Whip that he had known in our party. It is extremely generous of him to follow that with another compliment a decade later. More than one compliment a decade might go to my head, but I am grateful to him for what he has said, not least in his position as chairman of the all-party media group.

Mr. Joseph Ashton: Is the Minister aware that the Select Committee found that 10 million households have no regular weekly wage; 1.2 million of them cannot—not will not—pay their television licence; and 200,000 are prosecuted?. Is he further aware that the Committee recommended that we should stop criminalising that offence and impose a fixed penalty like that imposed for not paying car tax, and that the BBC should introduce some form of hire purchase?
Four times as many women as men are prosecuted, because single parents and pensioners are at home during the day when the van usually goes round. That attitude to the poor is a major social problem, which is in danger of being shoved to the bottom of the back page of the report but about which the public are extremely concerned.

Mr. Brooke: The hon. Gentleman is being true to himself because he has raised that subject with me before in similar exchanges. I recognise what he says, but the fact remains that, on a daily basis, the licence fee is less than the cost of a first-class postage stamp. Many people will think that that is good value. On the pursuit of those who cannot pay the licence fee, TV Licensing and the BBC recover about twice as much in evaded fees as it costs them to engage in that recovery. There is widespread feeling in the country that the pursuit of those who are not paying their licence fee is appropriate. However, it is right that the hon. Gentleman should continue to remind us that it constitutes a real problem for some people.

Sir Peter Hordern: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there is a good case for reviewing the licence fee from time to time, not only in view of the pace of technological change but because there appears to be evidence that the BBC is overmanned and still subject to restrictive practices? There must be room for improvement there.
What pressure will be put on the BBC in future to improve its domestic as opposed to overseas service? Many of us feel that its overseas service is a model of objective reporting, far removed from the service that we sometimes find here, which appears to be much more motivated by its producers' political prejudices.

Mr. Brooke: The rate at which the licence fee rises was reviewed in 1990 and again in 1993, and the formula will be looked at again in 1996–97. In a Green Paper in 1992, we said that the licence arrangement was an anomaly, but it was felt to be the best way to conduct the financing. My right hon. Friend will have heard me say, however, that

before the year 2001, the process of the licence fee, not the formula, will be examined again in view of opportunities provided by new technology.
On my right hon. Friend's remarks about services abroad, as opposed to those in this country, I was not sure whether he was distinguishing between television and radio, but I am certain that his remarks will have been heard by those in the BBC.

Mr. Tony Benn: Is the Minister aware that the attempt to introduce artificially a market system into the BBC has led to layers of bureaucracy and costing exercises that have no meaning, and has had a very bad effect on the security of those who work on the programme, and on their morale? Mark Tully and others who have great experience in the public service have drawn attention to that.
Is the Minister also aware that broadcasting is not just a matter of technology? The modern media are far more powerful than the mediaeval churches, and what we want in the next century is not just more of the same in other outlets, but access to the media and a diversity of opinion, fairly presented. I hope very much that when that comes forward, that will be a part of Government policy, because at the moment there are many people who get programmes that they may agree with or disagree with, but they do not have an opportunity to present their views to other members of the community through the broadcast media; that is the case for public service broadcasting.

Mr. Brooke: I have to remind the right hon. Gentleman, who referred to "layers of bureaucracy", that the process has released £100 million that has been able to be ploughed back into programme making. In the context of the BBC, and of those people who listen to it and watch it, that transfer of investment seems to me to be thoroughly in the interests of corporation and of audience. As to the diversity of opinion to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, obviously he is right that the changes in technology will open up large new options for us in several different directions, and I should be surprised if the recommendation that he makes were not in the spirit of the times.

Sir John Gorst: Will my right hon. Friend make it quite clear to the BBC that the extension of the charter period is not a preservation order on a grade I listed building, which may not be tampered with by developers or entrepreneurs, but merely a breathing space to enable the corporation to transport itself from the past to the future, which may not necessarily be one that will be supported by a licence fee in the far-distant future?

Mr. Brooke: I hope that my hon. Friend will find, when he analyses my statement, that nothing that I said was in contradistinction to what he has said. I referred to the options that would be available to the BBC in future, and the way that we were maintaining the flexibility of those options. I look forward to the BBC, in its special way, distinguishing itself in the next century as it has in the present one.

Mr. Bruce Grocott: Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that, although some of his friends may not like it, implicit in his statement is the fact that so—called free market forces do not deliver quality programming, and that the reason why the BBC is admired throughout the world and almost universally in this country—apart from by some strange people who attend Conservative party


conferences—is that it is a system which has been subject to democratic regulation and control? Will he finally acknowledge that it is fatuous to believe that the BBC can exist in isolation, while other areas of broadcasting are let rip without proper democratic regulation and control? When can we have a comprehensive statement on broadcasting, to cover ownership of satellite and cable, to cover quality of programming in satellite and cable and to cover the degree of British production provided by satellite and cable?

Mr. Brooke: I do not agree with the observation of the hon. Gentleman that, in his words, so-called free markets could not deliver quality television. It is one of the glories of our system, with public service broadcasting on the one hand and commercial broadcasting co-existing beside it, that we produce very fine television. I think that the system is the better for the introduction of commercial television, and I am conscious that the Labour party opposed that when it was introduced.
As to the question that the hon. Gentleman asked me about the next stage in developments, when I announced the cross-ownership media review in January this year, I said that the official stage in that should be completed by the end of June; that date has now passed, and we are therefore moving into the stage of consideration by Ministers.

Mr. David Mellor: I also warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend and his colleagues on the White Paper, which recognises that there is as great a need for a strong, well-resourced and independent BBC today as there ever has been in its history. His decision on the licence fee must surely be right, not only for the BBC, but for independent television, since one of the strengths of British broadcasting is that two entirely separate rivers of finance flow—one from the public and one from commercial advertising.
Is the vote of confidence by the Government in the BBC entirely occasioned by the radical changes that the director—general and his team have been carrying through? If those radical changes had not been carried through, would it have been possible for the Government to take the view that they have in the White Paper?

Mr. Brooke: I am particularly grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend, who is right in what he says about the interaction with independent television and the fact that there is, if not quite a seamless robe, something that must be seen as a whole. That is one reason why those in commercial television are as enthusiastic as they are to see the BBC thrive. I wholly agree with what my right hon. and learned Friend said about the radical changes introduced by BBC management.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: In welcoming the Minister's basic proposals and his warm words of praise for the BBC, I must ask him whether he agrees that it is unfortunate that most of that was not said three years ago. Instead, the interim period was used to keep the BBC twisting in the wind and to turn his lunatic friends loose on it with their dark nostrums. As a result of that period, much damage has already been done. There has been a collapse of staff morale and a weakening in the quality and provision of programmes, particularly at a regional level.
There have been cuts in the cultural and music provision. A pluralistic and diverse organisation has been forced into a Birtian corset when it should be much more diverse.
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the problems of the BBC will not be solved by such tinkering? The best way of helping the BBC to be the major provider and the major competitor on the international scene that we need it to be is to keep up its confidence and maintain the supply of money to it to enable it to do its job.

Mr. Brooke: The hon. Gentleman asked me why I did not say something three years ago. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has told me that I will not be at this Dispatch Box in a week's time. I certainly was not at this Dispatch Box in my present capacity three years ago. Like shadow spokesmen in the Department, people in my position are here today and gone tomorrow.
On the hon. Gentleman's final question, patently, the morale of any organisation is the greater if it has confidence in what it is doing and confidence in its future. I hope that the White Paper that we have published today will reinforce that sense of confidence in the BBC.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Carrying on somewhat from the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton), may I ask my right hon. Friend to enlighten me as to why the licensing authority should require those who apply for black and white television licences to sign a declaration to the effect that their televisions are black and white?

Mr. Brooke: I must congratulate my hon. Friend on having asked me a question for which I was not wholly prepared. I suspect that the answer is that, when the appropriate monitoring service visits houses, it is found on a number of occasions that the television sets are in colour, but the licences are for black and white sets. I dare say that, in order to avoid the possibility of colour blindness, there is concern when the licence is taken out that the householder should be conscious of what sort of television he owns.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: Within the framework described by the right hon. Gentleman why has not a much more radical degree of autonomy and decentralisation been sought within the BBC to create BBC Wales, BBC Scotland and regional stations that can flourish and develop away from the Birtian centralised view of life? That view is centralised, despite the semantic changes that he has recently made. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not close his mind to those proposals.

Mr. Brooke: There is a limit to the amount of change that any organisation can make in a relatively short space of time. There is no question but that the present management of the BBC is moving power and authority out to the different countries of the United Kingdom and to the regions. I am sure that the BBC will have heard what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. Tony Marlow: Will my right hon. Friend deal with the nonsense of ethnic quotas? The programme credits and the faces of those reading the news show that ethnic minorities are at least adequately represented. They are welcome, valued and fortunate to be


here, but should not they be told that British culture and attitudes should predominate, not least in the British Broadcasting Corporation?

Mr. Brooke: That is essentially a matter for the management of the BBC, conducted under the law. It is responsible for its programming and employment practices.

Mr. Roy Beggs: In the right hon. Gentleman's very comprehensive statement, he said that there were obligations on the BBC to observe due impartiality. Does it have a responsibility to promote British culture and identity? Can he assure us that Northern Ireland may be subjected to less promotion of Irish nationalist culture and identity, as it, too, is part of this nation and the BBC is there to serve the British nation?

Mr. Brooke: The responsibility of the BBC for the culture, heritage and arts of this country is something to which I alluded in my statement. One of the glories of the BBC is that it has been speaking on behalf of the whole nation for more than 70 years. Every minority can expect to be represented, informed, educated and entertained. As someone who was resident in Northern Ireland for part of his career, I pay tribute to the manner in which BBC Northern Ireland conducts that remit.

Mr. Eric Pickles: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that, during the BBC's extension, one of the most significant improvements in technology will be digitised broadcasting? Does he further recognise that, no matter what the BBC does in that area, it will be against the backdrop of a diminishing share? He should take that into account when considering the possible licensing of Channel 5—a terrestrial channel. Digitised broadcasting and Channel 5 would enhance the considerable advantage that British industry currently enjoys in that technology. It would be good for our local electronics companies and it would be good for Britain's balance of payments.

Mr. Brooke: My hon. Friend alludes to something to which there was a passing reference in my statement, but obviously his reference to Channel 5 goes outside the statement. There is widespread recognition of the industrial opportunities and the broadcasting gains that can flow both from advances in digital and from the potential of Channel 5. It is certainly a subject of which my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and I never lose sight.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: The White Paper makes a commitment to the transfer of a proportion of network production from London to Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and the regions of England. What assurances can the right hon. Gentleman give about the content of those programmes? Where will editorial control lie? It would not be good enough simply to transfer the production of those programmes, because it is important that they reflect the language, culture and tradition of each of those countries and regions.

Mr. Brooke: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his reference to the BBC's transfer of network production. However, the opinions that we gathered during the consultation process showed that there are as many people who want the production in Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and, indeed, in parts of England of programmes that have a universal application for the nation, as there are

who want a strictly regional application. It is an exercise in balance that will have to be sustained within the countries and the regions themselves. However, it is a point which is not remotely lost on the BBC.

Mr. Toby Jessel: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the BBC continues to give tremendous stimulus to music through its broadcasts, its orchestras and its promenade concerts and that the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) is completely wrong about it? I join in the general welcome for my right hon. Friend's decision on the 10-year charter and his references to the Select Committee's work, but will he accept that the licence system is not quite satisfactory? The evasion rate is 7 per cent., there are many criminal cases and all the expensive paraphernalia of detector vans. May we dare look forward to the day when eventually it will be possible to disconnect non-payers, as one would with water bills?

Mr. Brooke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the tribute that he paid to the BBC's commitment to music and I pay tribute to his work as a member of the Select Committee. I alluded to the changes in technology that will make it possible to consider alternatives to the licensing system, let alone to examine the system itself, but he is right—there is resentment that some people in this country enjoy the benefits of television without paying for it.

Mr. Brian Sedgemore: During his deliberations, did the Secretary of State receive any representations from those people who are versed in technological Babel and who are calling either for a merger between the BBC and British Telecom or Mercury or for joint public-private sector ventures between the BBC and British Telecom or Mercury? Does not he recognise that that road leads inevitably and inexorably, first, to loss of editorial control and, ultimately, to privatisation?

Mr. Brooke: In response to an earlier question from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), the Chairman of the Select Committee, I said that the issue of the convergence in the technologies would obviously overshadow the next 10 years of the licence fee, but I made no comment on the substance of the issue.

Mr. Nigel Forman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many Conservative Members—although obviously not all—are pleased by his reassurance that the licence fee will be the fundamental way of financing the BBC over the next phase? However, does he realise that our support is necessarily provisional because, in the rapidly moving world of telecommunications and broadcasting, we want the following principles to be maintained: continuity, universality and above all, quality? In the past, the BBC has been renowned for those things, but we want a reassurance that they can be achieved in future.

Mr. Brooke: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for introducing what might be regarded as a new issue: the fact that maintaining the critical mass of the BBC to achieve the objectives that he described has been an important element in our thinking. As for the provisionality of his views, there will be an opportunity, prior to the year 2000, to review the licensing system.

Mr. Brian Wilson: Will the Secretary of State accept that, while I welcome his


statement's broad approach and the principles on which that it is based, there is real concern among broadcasters in Scotland, Wales and, I am sure, in the English regions—there is nothing parochial about that concern—that they do not wish to broadcast inwards but they wish a fair opportunity to broadcast outwards to the rest of the United Kingdom? Does he also accept that an antidote to the centralist tendencies in the BBC or any large organisation is needed and that the Government have a duty to ensure that resources and the commitment are there to allow all parts of the UK to play a full part in the BBC?

Mr. Brooke: In answer to other questions, I have mentioned the moves that the BBC has already made, but all hon. Members will be watching closely to see what the outcome will be. The BBC's heart is clearly in the right place.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. We shall now move on.

Points of Order

Mr. Ron Davies: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I know that you take a close interest in the affairs of the Principality and no doubt you will have read the leading article in the Western Mail which refers to a statement that the Secretary of State for Wales intends to make. The article reads:
The Development Board for Rural Wales is to be scrapped. Welsh Secretary John Redwood will unveil his plans to abolish the quango in the Commons tomorrow.
It would not be appropriate to raise the substance of that matter today, because, even though it is controversial and will be bitterly resisted by Opposition Members, it is a matter for future debate.
However, I want to raise with you, Madam Speaker, the fact that such a statement seems to me a clear illustration of the arrogance of a Government who have been in power too long, and who demonstrate at every turn their total contempt for the people of Wales. Above all, it shows gross and deliberate discourtesy to the House, and to you, Madam Speaker. You have ruled before that when Ministers have a statement to make to the House of Commons, they should make it to the House of Commons,

not pre-empt the proceedings of the House by running away and making statements to the press. Will you confirm that that is the practice, and that that is what you require Ministers to do?

Madam Speaker: I must confess that I am not an avid reader of the Western Mail, and as I am not in possession of all the relevant facts, I do not wish to comment on the specific case that the hon. Gentleman has raised. What I do know is that much newspaper comment is often speculation, but I reiterate my view that all important announcements by Ministers should be made to the House in the first instance. I hope that Ministers will always bear my comments in mind.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTION FOR FRIDAY 22 JULY

Members successful in the ballot were:

Mr. Harry Cohen
Lady Olga Maitland
Mr. Alan Meale

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Would it be possible for you to outline your thinking on statements? I understand the position of the Speaker if there is a pressing day and urgent business, but we all know that today is a very light day—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]. Only eight Members were still seeking to catch your eye earlier, Madam Speaker, and we finished at 4.23, not even at a "round figure" such as 4.30 or some other magic hour. May I ask for your thinking on the subject?

Madam Speaker: I do not operate on magic hours; I operate on the basis of when I think the statement made by a Secretary of State has been exhausted by Back-Bench Members. I felt that that was the case today, as I do on many occasions. I have many factors to weigh and to take into account—such as the business before us, which I do not consider at all light, and the fact that we shall return to the issue. I also take into account the fact that I often see frustration on the faces of many hon. Members who are very active; the hon. Gentleman is one of them. I know that he likes to put questions to Ministers, but I have to take so many things into account, and I think that it was fair enough that we finished when we did today. Of course I shall remember the hon. Gentleman on a future occasion, just as I will remember other hon. Members in all parts of the House.

School Leavers Community Service

Mr. Gyles Brandreth: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend section 22 of the Education Reform Act 1988 to introduce a mandatory requirement for the National Record of Achievement of every school leaver to include details of the school leaver's contribution to community service; and for connected purposes.
You will not be surprised to learn, Madam Speaker, that my favourite English historians are Messrs Sellars and Yeatman who, in their classic work "1066 and All That", divided the great moments and the great figures of history into those that were a Good Thing and those that were not. I believe that the whole House will accept that community service is indisputably a Good Thing.
In my part of the world, hundreds of young people are involved in community service—through their schools, through the scouts, the guides and the sea cadets, through Church groups and through voluntary organisations as different as the YMCA and the Chester rural youth action team, and through schemes as well established as the Duke of Edinburgh's award and as innovatory as the Central Council of Physical Recreation's sports leadership award.
Many young people in Chester and beyond are giving freely of their time—helping senior citizens to paint a kitchen, clearing a local canal, picking stones off waste land to turn it into a playing field, working with a will in the local hospital or hospice, serving the homeless and the discarded. Many thousands of young people are already committed to voluntary service—but not enough. We need more. In fact, we need them all, because community service should be part and parcel of every young person's education.
A number of people have been floating ideas in this area for a number of years. Indeed, looking through the cuttings file in the Library, it seems that the notion of some kind of national community service has been on somebody or other's agenda since the ending of national military service back in 1963. The Prince of Wales raised the issue again last week. The Labour party's Commission on Social Justice has explored the possibility. The Government have promised £350,000 as part of their "Make a Difference" initiative to encourage more first-time volunteers and to provide new opportunities and easier access to volunteering.
Across the political spectrum, I hear people talking about the role of the active citizen. I think that I even detect a certain squabbling as to the ownership of the concept of civic responsibility.

The Secretary of State for Education (Mr. John Patten): We thought of it first.

Mr. Brandreth: The Secretary of State asserts that we thought of it first. He is right on most things, so I shall give him the benefit of the doubt on this. Argument, debate, conferences, pamphlets, editorials are all very well, but it is time for action, which is why I am proposing today a practical first step.
Thanks to the Education Reform Act 1988, every school leaver is now equipped with a national record of achievement. My Bill proposes that that all-important document should contain space for a clear and detailed record of the school leaver's contribution to the community. So, alongside the national vocational 
qualifications and the GSCEs, one would be obliged to show the detail of the community service that one has undertaken.
We can learn from the experience of the United States in this area. In 1992, Maryland became the first state to require community service from students as a condition of high school graduation. Other states now follow Maryland's example. I am not advocating a top-down approach with a heavy structure to impose compulsory community service, but a simple mechanism which will encourage an ever-increasing number of young people to give their time, energy and talent to the community, so helping the community and, equally important, helping themselves.
The move will have wide support. Dr. Martin Stephen, the chairman of the HMC community service committee, has been a pioneer champion of the cause. Community service volunteers, through its CSV education programme, are actively working with schools and colleges to involve young people in positive community action. Martyn Lewis, the good news broadcaster who is visiting the House today, is patron of "Youth for UK", a scheme designed to promote volunteering by 16 to 25-year-olds, based on the belief that all young people should be encouraged to undertake a period of voluntary work.
Wisely, "Youth for UK" wants young volunteers to begin by taking advantage of the opportunities that already exist. It wants to encourage greater co-operation between current providers without in any way threatening their independence. It wants to extend the scope for volunteering so that, in time, sooner rather than later, every young person in Britain will see community service not simply as an exciting challenge, but as a natural part of civilised life in a civilised society.
As you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have been a Member for a couple years only, which is why I still claim to be loosely in touch with reality. Amid the arcane procedures and curious rituals that we have here, several of which still puzzle me, I have nothing but praise and thanks for the opportunities which exist for hon. Members to promote private Members' Bills. My first such Bill did not get past its Second Reading, but the essence of it was taken up by the DTI. My second Bill did not reach Committee, but aspects of it now form part of a Department of the Environment planning policy guidance note. The Video Recordings Act 1993 is now the law of the land and the Marriage Bill may yet be. I am pleased to report that it completed its consideration in Committee this morning.
Whatever the cynics may say in the House and beyond, we Back Benchers, as well as making a noise, occasionally make a difference. I understand that, since 1970, just six ten-minute Bills have reached the statute book. Given the contribution that the young can make to community service and given the contribution that community service can make to the young, it would be glorious if this Bill could be the magnificent seventh.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Gyles Brandreth, Mr. Sebastian Coe, Mr. Charles Hendry, Mr. Graham Riddick and Mr. Nigel Forman.

SCHOOL LEAVERS COMMUNITY SERVICE

Mr. Gyles Brandreth accordingly presented a Bill to amend section 22 of the Education Reform Act 1988 to introduce a mandatory requirement for the National Record of Achievement of every school leaver to include


details of the school leaver's contribution to community service; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 15 July, and to be printed. [Bill 142.]

Orders of the Day — Education Bill [Lords]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered

New clause 1

COMMENCEMENT

'Part I of this Act shall come into force at the end of the period of twelve months beginning with the day on which it is passed.'.—[Mrs. Ann Taylor.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 4, in clause 5, page 3, line 32, after 'may', insert 'after 1st April 1996'.
No. 11, in clause 26, page 16, leave out lines 26 to 29.

Mrs. Taylor: The Opposition have tabled the new clause and amendments to give the Government another chance to reconsider their ludicrous timetable for the implementation of the measures contained in the Bill. We are opposed to the Bill in principle and we think that it has some serious practical faults. We are extremely unhappy with the Government's lack of attention to the practical difficulties that their proposals will bring to education. We believe that it would be appropriate, even at this late stage, for the Government to think again.
One of the main features of education in the past decade, and especially in the past two years, has been change on change, experiment on experiment and change seemingly for the sake of change. If any hon. Member asks a parent, a school governor or a teacher to state their concerns about education, above all else—there is much else that they complain about—they will speak out about the pace of change that the Government have imposed on education.
Regulations have been introduced before those that preceded them were implemented. Enormous amounts of education legislation have been introduced in recent years. Even now, the Government having been forced to reconsider the national curriculum, there is an insistence that that be done at breakneck speed.
The Bill is yet another example of the haste that the Government show when introducing their legislation. I thought of asking the House who it was who claimed that a good maxim is legislating in haste and repenting at leisure. On reflection, I considered that that would not be a fair question to put to the House because the statement was made by the Secretary of State at the time of an Appeal Court hearing by the National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers.
It is fair to ask why the Secretary of State always insists on legislating before consultations are complete and in pushing legislation through regardless of the views of those involved in education. Why does the right hon. Gentleman, time and again, tell us that every piece of legislation that he brings before us will be the last piece in the jigsaw? That was the phrase that he used when the Bill came before the House for Second Reading. Alas, it was the phrase that he used on Second Reading of what became


the Education Act 1993. Whoever is Secretary of State when the next piece of education legislation comes before us will undoubtedly use similar terminology.
I shall remind the House how rapid has been the change to education that the Government have introduced. In March, the Secretary of State announced that the SCITT—school—centred initial teacher training—pilot schemes were to go ahead. At the time, he said that those pilot schemes were going to be in advance of any future reforms. However, the Education Bill was introduced in the House of Lords on 23 November and, as the Secretary of State was forced to acknowledge in response to parliamentary questions from my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Ms Morris), the results of those pilot schemes will not be known until next May.
Therefore, we have a Bill which is supposed to be based on the experience of pilot schemes, but we are debating this important legislation before we know the outcome of those pilot schemes. It is clear that the pilot schemes were no more than a sop, a pretence and an appearance that the Government were going to be reasonable.
There are no arguments in favour of the very rapid timetable that the Government have introduced, but there are many arguments against it. One of the arguments against the Government's timetable is the confusion in Government quarters about what they think should be happening with regard to teacher education generally.
The Opposition argued on Second Reading and in Committee that it was essential that teacher education should be provided by a partnership between higher education and schools which could provide practical experience. That point was acknowledged on occasions by junior Ministers who seemed to accept that that was the best way to proceed. However, that is not what the Bill allows for. It allows for that partnership to be broken.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Further and Higher Education (Mr. Tim Boswell): Just for the record, does the hon. Lady concede that the Bill does not preclude that either? The fact that something may be desirable does not necessarily mean that it must be prescribed in statute.

Mrs. Taylor: Something as desirable as a partnership in this critical area should be on the face of the Bill. We will reach a critical amendment on that point later and I know that some Conservative Back-Bench Members are concerned about that issue.
I hope that Ministers will respond to my point at this early stage. What is the Government's collective view on the future of teacher education and that partnership between higher education and schools? I have seen the document which has been prepared by the Northern Ireland Office. That significant and official document is dated 1 June 1994. It is therefore also a very recent document. It is therefore a recent statement of Government policy. It states:
The planning and implementation of ITT will necessitate the strongest possible partnership between ITT providers and schools.
It is clear that Northern Ireland Ministers expect that partnership to be important and to continue.
In the past couple of days, I have seen an even more interesting statement by a Minister, this time at the Scottish Office. I assume that one Department responsible for education consults another Department responsible for

education. However, in Scotland, the Scottish Office has decided that, far from schools having an even greater role in teacher education, the reverse will be the case.
Scottish Office Ministers have issued a document to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities which contains new guidelines. According to those new guidelines, instead of the present arrangement which has been advocated by the Scottish Office whereby trainee teachers should spend 22 weeks in school, the Scottish Office is now recommending that they should spend 18 weeks in schools.
The Under-Secretary of State for Further and Higher Education may well look startled by my comments and I must admit that I was somewhat surprised when I read the new guidelines. While Ministers responsible for education in England and Wales are allowing school-centred initial teacher training—that is, schools to be the focal point of teacher training—their colleagues in Northern Ireland are talking about the importance of partnership and their colleagues in Scotland are reducing the number of weeks that trainee teachers need to spend in schools to obtain practical experience.
I submit that, with Ministers facing in so many different directions, it would be wise to accept the new clause and allow further time for reflection.

Mr. Colin Pickthall: I was not aware of the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) about the Scottish Office and the Northern Ireland Office document. Her points add a great deal of weight to the new clause.
The fact that not enough time is being given to assess the results of the pilot schemes properly is very important to the new clause. However, the new clause, like the Bill, is also about the future of the quality of teacher education. Public confidence in our teachers in future will depend largely on what happens as a result of the Bill.
We believe that the Government intend in the longer term that their programmes like school-centred initial teacher training should be expanded across the whole of the teacher education sector. At the moment, the Government argue that that programme applies only to a section of postgraduate courses. In Committee, the Under-Secretary of State for Further and Higher Education said that there were no plans to expand the scheme at this time. When talking to a Centre for Policy Studies meeting last year, the Secretary of State said that SCITT schemes
give students the opportunity to bypass teacher training.
That phrase says a great deal about the intentions.
In Committee, we also heard what many Back Benchers would like to see happening to teacher education. In contrast to that, the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) who has a distinguished record in education, said:
By all means let us try to reform teacher training…by encouraging a great deal more emphasis on classroom skills and experience…However…we must be careful not to reduce too far the role of higher education institutions. They have a great deal to contribute".—[Official Report, 23 November 1993; Vol. 233, c. 353.]
That was well said and I hope that Ministers will take that point into account.
Clause 16 allows the Secretary of State to impose any changes he wishes on the Teacher Training Agency. That again opens up an avenue about which we are concerned. We have tabled new clause 1 because we believe that the consequences for education could be dire. It could be dire


for the teaching profession; for schools and their pupils in consortia; for teacher education departments in universities and colleges; and for local authorities and their responsibilities.
Those dire consequences may not happen, although we do not know that. However, we know that education institutions of all kinds are infinitely adaptable and none more so than higher education and HE in so far as it is involved in teacher education. It has adapted enormously over the past two decades. However, the balance of probability is that there is a massive element of risk in what the Government are doing. About 99 per cent. of education practitioners are at best apprehensive about the consequences of the Bill, and at worst diametrically opposed to it. Asking why leads us to seek to amend the Bill.
In recent weeks, we have seen the disintegration of some partnerships or parts of partnership schemes. We know that the basis of partnership is being extended into SCITT schemes. In Committee, we noted that the deputy head of the Bishop Stopford school in Enfield was reported in The Guardian of 17 May as saying that the consequences of partnership for his school were extremely problematic. There had been serious consequences for senior members of staff who were using far too much time in the supervision of students, and therefore the school was withdrawing from the partnership.
In Committee, we were informed of an article in The Times, written by a mature student, Jeremy Howard, who had spent 15 years as an art dealer before experiencing such a partnership. His view—it is straight from the horse's mouth—is:
The trouble with learning in the classroom is that you get few second chances. It is not easy in school to admit when things are going wrong, for fear of an unsympathetic response or being labelled incompetent.
He reports on Keith Holt, who leads the school-based pilot scheme at Whitmore school in Harrow and who believes that students who plunge straight into a school-based course tend to be less adventurous in their teaching. Perhaps that is what the Government want.
Attrition rates among mentors in partnership schemes are up as much as 25 per cent. That is what Manchester university has experienced. Student drop-out rates in partnerships are growing and are greater than in older established schemes. There have been reported cases of students in partnership schemes having restricted access to higher-ability pupils because the school fears for their over-exposure. Obviously, it has league tables in mind.
The Association of University Teachers and the National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education sent hon. Members a document which pointed out that, in one Birmingham partnership scheme, all the selective schools have left the scheme because of pressure on staffing resources.
Those cases are anecdotes and individual examples, but they are important straws in the wind to demonstrate the risk that the new clause would avoid.
The response of head teachers in particular is that, as teachers of children, they are inherently unsuited to teach students in the school situation. Time is needed to examine that judgment, about which teachers have been informing us throughout the progress of the Bill.
Current pilot schemes obviously benefit from initial enthusiasm and commitment. One would expect that. Therefore, one would imagine that the Government had everything to gain from delay. Presumably, the results from pilot schemes will be good and will be enthusiastically reported. The Opposition believe that there should be time for them to be properly assessed.
There is much concern about the widening of and the effect of SCITT schemes over a period, the effect on cost assessment in schools, and the effect on the increased bureaucracy needed in schools to run the schemes. The Bill does not allow time to assess those wider implications. We have had reports of the pressures on teachers as a result of the incessant changes, which my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury remarked on, and there have been the pressures of curriculum change, which I hope will ease a little over the next 12 months.

Mr. Oliver Heald: One understands that the hon. Gentleman is a former lecturer and that he wants to stand up for the old higher education lecturers who are his friends, but has he taken the trouble to go to a school which has a school-based initial training scheme and assess it for himself, as I asked in Committee? Has he done so yet?

Mr. Pickthall: I have not been to one of those schemes, but I intend to do so. As I said in Committee, I do not expect to be critical; I expect such schemes to be well run. That is not the substance of my argument.
There have also been league tables and reports of tensions that have been created by league tables, particularly if a schools finds itself slipping in comparison with other schools in the neighbourhood, which could happen because of over-exposure to students. One has seen that already. There have been problems in schools of managing surplus places and the financial consequences of that. There has been the exceedingly high incidence of retirements among experienced teachers in the past few years—the very teachers who would best be able to support students in those circumstances. All those factors mean that there will be excess stress on school staff involved in the schemes or the neglect of students—one or the other.
We also must consider the effects on students. In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) said that it takes five years to assess the success of a student's training or teacher education. I would not go that far; I do not think that one could wait that long, but at least some time is needed to assess output—one year, perhaps. For example, we should ask how many students have a job at all at the end and what problems they have in terms of their qualifications. Will there be two tiers of new entrants into the teaching profession as a result of the Bill? What success have students had in the first year, particularly now without a probationary year as a support?
What will be the effect on students of the lack of individual tutorial supervision, the lack of library and research back-up that higher education institutions have, and the lack—I would not underestimate it; it is terribly important—of student mutual support and welfare systems? We must also consider the effect on teacher education departments occupied by young lecturers as well as old ones, I might add, in universities and colleges. They need time, just as the country needs time, to assess the consequences for themselves.

Mr. Harry Greenway: The hon. Gentleman seems to assume that all is well in higher education institutions. That is certainly not the case. There is enormous dissatisfaction with diploma of education courses and others. That is fundamental to the pressure for change, and the hon. Gentleman should know that.

Mr. Pickthall: I did not imply even remotely that everything was perfect in existing teacher education institutions—that would be foolish. Of course we need continual change and improvement. If such institutions are as appalling as the hon. Gentleman suggests, why are Ministers constantly concerned to tell us that they are only tinkering with a corner of the postgraduate certificate of education courses and leaving all the rest of them alone? If matters were as appalling as the hon. Gentleman says, they would wipe the lot out and start again. Some Conservative Back-Bench Members would like to see that happen. I have seen no evidence in any quantity to suggest that dissatisfaction with the present teacher education arrangements in colleges and universities is as widespread as the hon. Gentleman suggests.

Mr. Nick Hawkins: Does the hon. Gentleman regard it as an indictment of the training of teachers that so many school leavers are illiterate after 11 full years of compulsory state education? Is not that an indictment in some way of teaching training?

Mr. Pickthall: No, it is an indictment of 15 years of Conservative control of the education system. The hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins) cannot have it both ways. His Government have been in charge of the education system for 15 years, and presided over a period when the education standards to which he refers fell.

Mr. Hawkins: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way again.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before we go any further, hon. Members should get back to debating commencement.

Mr. Hawkins: If the hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Pickthall) is suggesting that the figure for the literacy of school leavers was significantly better in 1979, he is entirely mistaken. I suggest that he looks at the statistics.

5 pm

Mr. Pickthall: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that literacy has not decreased? I do not follow that argument at all. I shall try to wind up quickly.
Local education authorities also need time to adjust because the impact of consortia on local education authority networks will be considerable, depending on the concentration of them. They will have an impact on special educational needs provision, reading support services, the existing cluster arrangements and the existing feeder school arrangements. All that adds up to a compelling case for delay and for proper assessment of what is going on at present, much of which we approve of and want to support.
The Bill is going through on hope and guess. There is no disagreement about partnerships, which should be given more time to demonstrate that they can deliver better education. There is no disagreement about the need to continue to improve teacher education and to refine the increased class-based training. But those working in

schools and colleges express deep concern about the likely outcome. They deserve to be reassured by proper assessments. We must get it right first time; otherwise, the Government essentially could be conducting an experiment on school pupils and students which is likely to fail.

Mr. David Evennett: I want to make a brief contribution to the debate on new clause 1, not only as a former teacher from the 1970s but as someone who is married to a teacher. I shall begin by commending the work on the Bill by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and the Ministers on the Front Bench, my hon. Friends the Members for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) and for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire). It is pioneer work and should be supported by the House.
We all want better teachers. We want better trained teachers. We all want better standards in the classroom. We all want academic excellence, good vocational courses and good basic education. For all those things, we need well-trained, well-motivated teachers. I am disappointed that the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) said that we should put off the reforms for 12 months. Many of us feel that reform is long overdue because teacher training has been too academic; it has not looked enough at the chalk face of what is going on in schools, and it has been based too much in an ivory tower.
In the Bill, we have an innovative approach to providing better and more relevant teacher training so that teachers can do a better job, parents can be happier with the teaching in our schools and all pupils can be better educated. We all know that the majority of teachers in our schools do a good job. They have a difficult and demanding job and we must ensure that they have the tools to be able to do that job to the best of their ability. If we come along, as we have in this Bill, with considerable reform to try to improve teacher training, why should we wait? What is the benefit of saying that we want reforms and improvements but we want to wait?

Mr. John Gunnell: rose—

Mr. Evennett: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment. It seems that he always wants to wait until tomorrow.

Mr. Gunnell: I am struck by the fact that the hon. Gentleman has told us that the majority of teachers are good. He said that the majority of teachers have the skills. Almost all of them have been through the present training system, and they have acquired those skills from that system. Why is the hon. Gentleman confident that these changes will result in all teachers having those skills? What evidence does he have that there will be an improvement? We think that the whole thing is rubbish and will not help at all.

Mr. Evennett: That is the voice of unenlightened self-interest—the voice of teacher training colleges and lecturers. What I am saying is that teaching changes. We are in a different world now. We are on this side of the House because Labour are still living in the 1960s.

Ms Estelle Morris: rose—

Mr. Evennett: I will not give way. I must be brief because other hon. Members want to speak.
All I am saying is that we have come forward in the Bill with reforms that are necessary to deal with teacher training today to ensure that we can educate the children of


today and tomorrow. The hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Gunnell) is looking back. There are some good teachers but they need retraining. More importantly, we want teachers to train our children for today and tomorrow so that they can compete in the world. As we all know, it is a competitive world out there. We want the best teachers. We want them trained so that they can get the best out of our nation's children. That is what the measure is about. We must therefore reject the new clause.

Mr. Derek Enright: rose—

Mr. Evennett: I will not give way. The hon. Gentleman can make his own contribution in a moment; I know that he wants to do so.
What I am saying is that we must reject the new clause. We want the Bill implemented now for the interests of our children, the parents and, ultimately, the teachers. Teachers want to be well trained so that they can enable our future citizens to make a good contribution to and fight for this country with the skills that they need to take on the world in industry, commerce and so on. Without good, well-trained teachers, we cannot have well-educated children. Therefore, we must reject the new clause and get the Bill on the statute book as soon as possible, in the interests of education and in the interests of the people of this country.

Mr. Don Foster: It is extremely difficult to make a speech following the one by the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett). The hon. Gentleman said that he wants to see high-quality teaching in our schools from well-trained and highly motivated teachers. No hon. Member would disagree with that. The problem is that the hon. Gentleman has failed to give an example of one element of the Bill which will lead to the improvements that he wants to see.

Mr. Heald: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), who is bought and paid for by the union for higher education lecturers—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the hon. Member for Bath is in order; otherwise I would have ruled him out of order.

Mr. Foster: I should point out to the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald) that I am not bought and paid for by the union for higher education. I would be interested to know the union to which the hon. Gentleman is referring. As he is well aware, and as I have declared on many occasions in the House, I am supported by two teachers' unions. That has been regularly declared, as the Secretary of State will recognise. [Interruption.] I am sure that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would rule me out of order if I went into the question of how much, which would lead me to ask the Secretary of State how much he has been paid recently for a number of his activities.
If the new clause moved by the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) is accepted by the House, it will give the Government the opportunity to stop and think and, in doing so, to reflect on the Bill, especially part I. If we are lucky, they will realise the error of their ways.
The Secretary of State has claimed that the Bill is the last piece in the jigsaw of education reform. I hope that he will recognise that all the recent pieces that have been put in the jigsaw have been hastily introduced, have had little consultation and, following their introduction, have often had to be changed. For example, reference has already been made to the national curriculum and procedures for testing and assessment.
I hope that the Secretary of State will recognise those constant changes in higher education, to which he wants to add. In a recent speech he referred to the "pell-mell pace" of change. I also hope that he will recognise that many of our teachers are suffering from what can only be described as innovation fatigue. I suspect that the difficulties that have been caused by those rapidly introduced bits of the education jigsaw—ill-thought-out and poorly consulted on—together with what might generously be described as some insensitivity, might lead to the Secretary of State's downfall in the forthcoming Cabinet reshuffle.
Hon. Members may wish to remember that, on Second Reading, the Secretary of State said:
When I eventually leave my post in a good number of years' time".—[Official Report, 3 May 1994; Vol. 242, c. 597.]
I think that his prediction is wrong. If he were willing to undergo a last-minute conversion and to accept the new clause and amendments, he might just save himself, although I suspect not. If he accepted the new clause, it would give him time to question why such legislation and such a body as the Teacher Training Agency are so important for England, but are not yet necessary for Wales or Scotland. It would give him time to consider whether it is right for the Secretary of State for Education to take on yet more powers. He already has more powers than any Cabinet Minister, other than the Prime Minister.
If the Secretary of State accepted the new clause and the amendments, it would give him an opportunity to reflect on whether it is right to establish yet another objectionable, costly and superfluous quango, whose membership is to be determined solely by him, thereby undermining any possibility of it being seen as independent or credible.

Mr. Heald: I was somewhat surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman deny that he represents the lecturers, as he does. He represents the Association of Teachers and Lecturers.
Is it not the case that he opposes school-based initial teacher training? If that is so, why does he want to introduce it in one years' time? Why the shilly-shallying? Is it because he does not want to nail his colours to the mast in case the changes succeed? Will he answer the question that I put to him in Committee? Does he support such training, or is it the usual Liberal compromise?

Mr. Foster: I shall answer the hon. Gentleman as clearly and unequivocally as I did in Committee. I am opposed to the introduction of entirely school-centred initial teacher training. I should have thought that he would have understood why I support the new clause, if he had been listening. It will create some time for the Secretary of State and his Front-Bench colleagues to reflect on the errors contained in this legislation and will possibly allow them to introduce further legislation that would prevent those moves from taking place.

Mr. Heald: Does the hon. Member agree that that is a complete nonsense? If he is against, he should be against


and not introduce the change in a years' time. That is shilly-shallying in case it succeeds——then the Liberal Democrats will change their tune.

Mr. Foster: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could wait until Third Reading, when—by voting—I will make it absolutely clear where I and my party stand on the Bill.
The time that would be created, and might give the Secretary of State the opportunity to change his ways, would also enable him to consider whether it is right to fragment higher education, which is what the Bill will do, by separating the education of teachers from all other aspects of higher education and thereby diminishing the already fragile professional status of teachers.
The Secretary of State would also have time to reflect on why so many organisations oppose the proposals and so few accept them. On Second Reading he said:
The success of all our reforms depends on teachers working hard to put them into effect."—[Official Report, 3 May 1994; Vol. 242, c. 600.]
If that is so, would it not be a good idea to ensure that those, or any new proposals, are widely accepted before they are implemented?
The hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett) said that he wanted well-motivated teachers, but the introduction of one piece of legislation after another with which they disagree is hardly the best way to motivate teachers.
Because of the time allowed in the new clause, the Government will be able to reflect on whether it is appropriate to have yet more changes in initial teacher training, on top of the many changes that have already taken place in recent years and which the hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Pickthall) so rightly described. There would also be time to reflect once more on the advisability of moves towards skill-centred initial teacher training.
The hon. Member for Lancashire, West was not certain whether the Bill intended such a move. I believe that the Government intend to push hard towards school-centred initial teacher training.
5.15pm
If one wants evidence, one needs only to read the Secretary of State's words on Second Reading, when he said:
We are taking training closer to the chalk face and out of the ivory silo."—[Official Report, 3 May 1994; Vol. 242, c. 600.]
Much more convincing evidence comes from the 1994
Conservative party campaign guide, which stated:
The Education Bill currently before Parliament will give effect to the clear and distinctive Conservative view of teacher training—based on the belief that schools themselves should play the principal role in devising, and running, teacher training courses. Students should spend time in the classroom gaining practical experience and less time in higher education institutions learning (often left-wing) educational theory.
That is the principle that underlies the Government's move.
As other hon. Members have asked, is it not foolish to move towards school-based initial teacher training before the results of the pilot schemes have been evaluated?
One final matter on which the Secretary of State and Ministers may wish to reflect is that, if the measures go ahead, there is a danger that the number of institutions that participate in initial teacher training will decline markedly during the next few years. If that is the case, the very choice and diversity that Conservative Members are keen on providing will not be available.
I hope that the House will accept the new clause and the amendments, as they will give us time to reflect on the appalling proposals contained in the Bill and, having reflected, allow us ultimately to throw it out in its entirety.

Mr. Hawkins: In a very brief contribution I want to make one important point—that the people who matter in an education system are the children, followed by their parents.
As a former teacher, the son of a teacher and a university don and, most importantly, as a parent governor in a state junior school for some years, I was appalled by the low calibre of some people coming from teacher training colleges. There are many fine teachers and I pay tribute to their work, but when teachers leaving training colleges cannot spell properly, subtract, add up, or do simple mathematics, how are they supposed to pass on the required skills?

Mr. Enright: rose—

Mr. Hawkins: I am sorry, but I shall not give way because I said that I would be very brief.
I speak for parents and children, who deserve better-quality teachers. That is what the Teacher Training Agency will provide and that is why we should reject the Opposition's new clause. We want full support for the Government's proposals.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Mr. Robin Squire): The amendments moved by the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) and supported by Opposition Members are misguided. They attempt to go back over the same ground which was trodden earlier in Committee, except that this set of amendments is rather worse constructed than the earlier amendment covering the same issue. I shall come to the technical aspects later.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: Not too late.

Mr. Squire: I take that correction from a sedentary position from the hon. Lady.
The intention of the amendments is clear. The Opposition do not want to see the Teacher Training Agency up and running for another year, if at all. They do not want to see one body with an overview of teacher training bringing together the key functions of giving information to potential students and promoting teaching as a career, ensuring that all courses meet national standards, encouraging diversity in provision and offering choice to students, and allocating funds in pursuit of the statutory objective of raising the standards of teaching.
That is what the Teacher Training Agency will do and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins) reminded us, it is something which the Government are firmly pledged to carry through. The House sees a compelling case for the agency, and voted accordingly on Second Reading.
I have yet to hear a compelling reason why the implementation of the new arrangements should be subject to an arbitrary and unnecessary delay. My hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett) commented on it with wise words, and I agree with him completely. I accept that changes to the new arrangements for funding and accreditation will need careful planning. Contrary to


the allegations of the hon. Member for Dewsbury, the changes will be phased in. Delaying the setting up of the agency will militate against sensible transition.
I listened to the hon. Member Lancashire, West (Mr. Pickthall)—as I did in Committee—talk about his fears and concerns about change and the possible risk. I accept that we are requiring a change in teacher training, but the change is designed to improve performance. We do not underestimate the importance of getting in the new arrangements properly with the co-operation of higher education and schools. The Teacher Training Agency will be well placed to oversee and monitor that process and adjust the funding and other arrangements as necessary.
Those, I submit, are arguments in favour of a specialist body and are scarcely arguments against. After all, only when the agency is up and running with members and officers can it start to take a view on the important issues. Not having an agency until this time next year will simply freeze the position for 12 months, and that will not help the agency at all. It appears that one single issue has blinded the Opposition to the range of important work that the agency will be doing and co-ordinating.

Mr. Don Foster: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Squire: I refer, of course, to school-centred initial teacher training and, at that precise moment, I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Foster: I was trying to catch the Minister's eye just before he moved on from that point. He said that the Teacher Training Agency will be making vital decisions affecting teaching. Will the meetings of the TTA be held in public, following the advice given by Baroness Blatch to the Standing Advisory Council for Religious Education, as the agency is making vital decisions on one aspect of teaching?

Mr. Squire: The meetings will not be held in public, but the hon. Gentleman knows from the points raised in Committee that the general code of openness will apply to the proceedings and deliberations of the agency. It will not have open meetings as such.
The key issue from the Opposition's comments both here and in Committee has been the question of school-centred initial teacher training. Delaying the Bill would not prevent progress with school-centred training under existing legislation, which would carry on and be funded directly by the Department on pioneer courses. It would mean that, rather than the agency looking across all teacher training—in the light of all the evidence—and making judgments about the balance to strike between school-centred and other courses, that balance would remain for my right hon. Friend to determine for another year.
In the light of the comments of the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), that is scarcely an example of more power being taken by the Secretary of State. On the contrary, the Bill is another example of my right hon. Friend passing up powers.
I accept all that has been said about the importance of the Ofsted evaluation of school-centred training, and I say the same about all Ofsted evaluations. The agency will be

well placed to take account of the emerging messages in the decisions which it takes on funding or courses during the academic year 1995–96.

Mr. Greg Pope: Does the Minister agree with the disgraceful comments made by the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins) that many newly qualified teachers are of a low calibre? If he does agree with his hon. Friend, why does the Minister think that those low-calibre teachers are the people best placed to train the next generation of teachers?

Mr. Squire: The hon. Gentleman is trying to lead me down avenues which I am not particularly willing to go down. I am happy to tell him that, on the basis of several visits both to school-centred training and higher education teacher training, the calibre in general of new teachers is very good. [Interruption.] But I would think that it would not be a matter for argument across the Chamber that teaching in general needs ever higher standards to match the demands being made on schools by the world outside. I hope that that is not controversial. We are trying to ensure that there is a better chance of higher-calibre teachers emerging in the future.

Ms Estelle Morris: If the Bill becomes law, will the Government continue to make larger grants available to students sitting their teacher training course in a SCITT than to those sitting their course at another institution?

Mr. Squire: The hon. Lady is, in effect, referring to one of the many decisions that the Teacher Training Agency will need to take. That will be linked with the value for money which we have stressed throughout the proceedings. The agency will be looking for quality in courses and will also look for value for money. In very broad terms, the sums of money that school-centred initial teacher training courses will get will be similar to that which goes at present to higher education.

Ms Morris: The specific point about which I wished to talk was the grant being made available to students sitting their initial teacher training course. I think that I am right in saying that at the moment students get a greater grant when they are on a SCITT course than if they do the same training in another institution. Will the Government say whether that will continue, or will they allocate resources and grants equally to all students who are studying initial teacher training, whatever way they choose to do so?

Mr. Squire: I believe that I am right in saying that the intention is that students will be treated in the same way under whichever form of training they are going to be receiving, whether it is higher education-dominated and school-based or school-centred. If that is not true, I shall return to the point during our proceedings this afternoon. That is certainly my understanding of the matter.
I mentioned at the outset certain technical deficiencies, and I shall not spend too long on them. Amendment No. 11 removes the commencement provisions of the Bill. While new clause 1 would at least enable part I to be started-although late—it would not enable parts II and III to be started. That would not allow essential student union reforms and would leave much of part I ineffective without the general provisions of part III.
Amendment No. 4 adds little to the overall effect of amendment No. 11 and new clause 1. It would simply prevent the agency and the Higher Education Funding


Council for Wales from funding institutions under the Bill until the financial year 1996–97. Since the agency would not exist until 1995, that could hardly be described as a further bar as it could scarcely do otherwise.
The Government have no intention of agreeing to the amendment, or the others in the group. There is no reason to delay, and the case for the agency is clear cut and accepted by the House. The amendments are wrong in principle and in practice. They would create uncertainty and confusion, and I ask the House to resist them.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: The debate has been much longer than I expected when I moved the new clause. The Minister was correct in one point—the Opposition do not want to see the Teacher Training Agency established. We have consistently opposed the Bill in principle, and we are seeking with the new clause to give the Government time to reconsider and look at the evidence which is not yet available because the pilots have not been completed.
The Minister's responses to many of the questions show that there are still many points which need to be decided, such as the critical point which he was not able to answer with regard to student support.

Mr. Squire: Lest there be any confusion, let me confirm that SCITT students will be treated on precisely the same basis as HE students.

Mrs. Taylor: The Minister is learning all the time, and I think that that experience will apply to the whole Bill.
One of the most interesting comments was made by the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald), who said that the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) opposed the Bill in case it succeeded. If Conservative Members are
Speaking in such terms, they are clearly not convinced that it will succeed. The hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins) expressed concern about children; his first concern should be to stop the experimentation that has so disrupted the quality of education recently.
The Minister did not tell us why the Government were adopting inconsistent attitudes to Northern Ireland, Scotland and England and Wales. Perhaps we can return to that on another occasion.
I accept that the new clause and amendments may be technically deficient. I do not want to waste time; we have other important matters to discuss. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 2

FUNCTIONS OF HER MAJESTY'S CHIEF INSPECTORS OF SCHOOLS

'.—(l) Her Majesty's Chief Inspectors of Schools may cause any institution which provides initial training for school teachers to be inspected, as regards the provision of such training, by one or more of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Schools (in this section referred to as "Inspectors").

(2) An Inspector shall for the purpose of inspecting an institution under this section have at all reasonable times—

(a) a right of entry to the premises of the institution;
(b) a right to inspect, and take copies of, any records kept by the institution, and any other documents containing information relating to the institution, which he considers relevant to the discharge of his function.

(3) It is an offence wilfully to obstruct an Inspector in the exercise of any of his functions under this section.

(4) A person guilty of such an offence is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.'.—[Mr. Pawsey.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. James Pawsey: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 1.

Mr. Pawsey: Let me immediately declare an interest: I am an adviser to the Association of Teachers and Lecturers.
This is principally a probing new clause, designed to develop the case made in Committee for inspection of colleges providing initial teacher training. Those who served on the Committee will recall that I tabled amendments that would have given OFSTED a prominent role in the control of such training. Sadly, when the lead amendment was called I was taking a delegation to meet my hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside; as I obviously could not be in two places at once, I was unable to move the amendment. I am therefore anxious to raise the important issue of quality assessment in ITT and HMI's role in its improvement.
I was pleased that the amendments that I tabled in Committee received some support, and I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for his courtesy in responding so fully and agreeing to consider them further. I note that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has tabled amendments to clause 5 which deal with the first point that I made in Committee, and I am grateful to him. I believe that my right hon. Friend is a listening Secretary of State—[Interruption.] It is no good Opposition Members making funny noises. My right hon. Friend listens to arguments, and if they have substance he acts.
HMI's role should be clearly specified in the Bill. It has an important part to play in the work of the Teacher Training Agency, and no one would dispute that an objective and professional assessment of training would greatly assist decisions about the way in which money should be allocated. If the concept of "to the best, the most" is too elitist, at least we can ensure that colleges whose standards are lower receive less money.
In a newsletter dated April 1994, the Campaign for Real Education states:
Educational reform will never succeed without radical improvements to the cultural attitudes prevalent in the teaching profession… Perhaps the first priority of the new agency should be an urgent review of the way trainee teachers are taught to teach reading? Improvements to this crucial part of teacher training could raise national standards more quickly than anything else. And may we look forward"—
this is the nub of the new clause—
to careful checks on all teacher training courses, coupled with the withdrawal of funding for those where 'good practice' based on ideological beliefs takes precedence over proven teaching methods supported by research?
The new clause will allow discussion about whether teacher training should be more closely associated with HMI's statutory duties. It may be considered slightly outside the mainstream of OFSTED's functions as set out in the Education (Schools) Act 1992, but we are now establishing a new statutory basis for initial teacher training, and I consider it entirely logical to set out a new statutory basis for its inspection.
I understand that HMI currently has the right to inspect schools, but—and it is an important but—no right to inspect higher education and teacher training. The new


clause takes a slightly different tack from the amendments tabled in Committee; I am trying to stress the need for HMI to inspect institutions—and, if it is given such a right, it will also need absolute rights of entry and access.
I realise that my suggestion may be considered slightly controversial, and may not be entirely to the liking of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals. It may be seen as a direct challenge of the committee's autonomy, or even as a challenge to academic freedom. Like all Conservative Members, I give way to no one in my belief that academic freedom is a pillar of our democracy: it is of the utmost importance. However, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, East—[HON. MEMBERS: "Blackpool, South."] I am sorry; I meant my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins). He stressed the importance of parents in this connection; he also referred to the importance of teachers, and I was interested by Opposition Members' reaction to that. He is right: there should be a partnership between children, parents and teachers.

Mr. Harry Greenway: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his geography, but he seems to be moving away from his central argument. The principle that he advocates—proper inspection of the new scheme—is admirable. Does he envisage on-the-spot, unannounced visits, longer inspections over a set period or a combination of the two?

Mr. Pawsey: I thank my hon. Friend for supporting the general principle. He asks whether inspections should be unannounced, or whether HMI's descent should be clearly advertised. I subscribe to the former. I should like inspections to be carried out without notice.
I want to achieve a high standard of teacher training, which, in turn, will ensure a high standard of teaching. In its turn, that will ensure a high standard of education for the nation's children. High standards can be guaranteed only if there is some right of independent inspection. The new clause seeks to remedy what I regard as a defect in the Bill and underline the importance of proper inspections for, without them, the quality of teacher training cannot and will not be guaranteed. If rigorous inspections of schools are necessary, why should they be any less necessary in the training of teachers?
A leading article in The Sunday Times of 10 April said:
On the eve of the NUT conference, a report from the Adult Literacy and Basic Skills Unit should have sent a shudder through the nation…It discovered that the number of young people who have serious problems with literacy and numeracy has risen in recent years from one in eight to one in five.
That quotation shows the whole justification for the Bill and the need substantially to change how teachers are trained.

Mr. Hawkins: Does my hon. Friend agree that the only negative thing that one could say about this reform is that it should have been done in 1979? It is long overdue, but I am delighted that it is happening at long last.

Mr. Pawsey: I accept what my hon. Friend has said.
I disagree with mixed-ability teaching. I am convinced that it is one of the fashionable panaceas that existed during the 1960s and 1970s. I have the utmost doubts about its effectiveness. I hope that I may be able to persuade my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to mention the matter, because it is outdated and should be dropped.

Mr. Enright: Will the hon. Gentleman define what he means by "mixed-ability teaching"? How would he organise it, for example, in religious or physical education?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Gentleman answers, it would help the debate and be correct if he would return to the subject of Her Majesty's inspectors of schools.

Mr. Pawsey: I am obliged to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. While I should have liked to have responded to the question of the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright), perhaps I shall see him in his usual place in the Library in the fulness of time.
One of the issues that prompted me to table new clause 2 is the decline in the standard of English teaching. There is substantial evidence from Ofsted of particularly weak performance in that subject. For example, the new "Teacher in School" survey says that some 46 per cent. of new primary teachers do not feel adequately prepared to teach reading. That is a damning indictment of the present system and it underlines yet again the need for change and for a proper and adequate system of teacher training—and the need for its inspection. [Interruption.] I regret the fact that Labour Members seem to think that teacher training is a laughable matter. I believe that initial teacher training is a serious issue that should be given the consideration that it deserves. I am delighted that at least Conservative Members are treating it in a sober way.
I was about to compliment Opposition Members by saying that hon. Members on both sides of the House are anxious to improve the quality and standard of state education, where the overwhelming majority of the nation's children are educated. The Bill will do much to advance that laudable objective, but it will do so that much more easily if an adequate system of inspection is in place.
The new clause not only ensures that institutions providing initial teacher training will be inspected, but that inspectors—

Mr. David Jamieson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Pawsey: No, I shall not give way.
It ensures that inspectors have a right of entry to inspect and take copies of any records that are maintained by those institutions.
I have also built into the new clause penalties for failing to provide inspectors with the co-operation which they will require in exercising their duties. I suspect that my right hon. Friend may have some modest difficulty in accepting that part of the new clause, yet unless a penalty exists, the rigorous inspection that is required will not take place.

Mr. George Walden: Naturally, I sympathise with the passions that drive my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) in proposing the new clause. I hope that he will forgive me for sounding a little cynical in what I am about to say.
One of the problems which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education faces is that he can work only with the material available, whether that be children whose parents cannot even talk because they spend their time watching television at home; whether it be children from hopelessly deregulated families; or whether it be


children who are subjected to an old-fashioned system of education, based on a defunct philosophy. I am talking about John Dewey's philosophy—the rot set in during the 1890s, not the 1960s, with phoney theories that have gripped the minds of generations of well-meaning, not always very bright, members of the profession.
What worries me about my hon. Friend's proposal is that I cannot see how we shall find inspectors to go into those institutions and root out the philosophical addiction that lies deep in the minds—worse, in the souls—of people who are often not at all left-wing. Worse, they are deeply sentimental people who have, deep in their souls, a mistaken philosophy of education, which it will be impossible to eradicate by inspectors, not least because we shall be unable to find inspectors who are free from the same virus—unless we use some form of thought police.
I confess to being a little surprised by the phrasing of the new clause, which says:
A person guilty of such an offence is liable on summary conviction"—
that sounds a little Stalinist—
to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.
That conjures up the idea of some sort of right-wing thought police going into those establishments, complete with manacles and scales of fines, who would try to constrain those people financially or even physically. The Chinese communists would call it "thought reform", which is what is needed because nothing short of thought reform à la Chinoise—if we are still allowed to use French—will change those people's minds. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would not want to be associated with that.

Mr. Pawsey: May I respectfully remind my hon. Friend that one of the quotations that I used was drawn from the Campaign for Real Education. As it seems that he may have inadvertently forgotten, I said:
Educational reform will never succeed without radical improvements to the cultural attitudes prevalent in the teaching profession.
I do not believe that there is so much of a gulf between us.

Mr. Walden: I did notice that phrase, with mental approval. However, the second part of my argument, which I shall now develop, is that one will not be able to find the inspectors to do that job, and to change the culture of the people inside the institutions, because they themselves are the product of those institutions.
I should like to ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State what he makes of a detailed, and I think responsible, report in The Daily Telegraph today by John Clare, one of the most distinguished and seriously engaged people in the field, which enunciates some of my private misgivings, which perhaps I should have voiced at the time—mea culpa on that—about the new inspection arrangements.
My misgivings were based precisely on the fear that one will not be able to find people to do a better job at inspecting schools in the private sector, when inevitably they come from the same stable as existed in the public sector. Mr. Clare's report shows, in its detailed accounts of what appear to be serious failings in individual schools, that those inspectors, who cost a lot of money, incidentally, are using the same wily, evasive phrases as were, and I imagine still are, current among Her Majesty's official inspectors, such as, "the lessons seem to me to be"—what is that terrible phrase ?—"satisfactory or better". It seems

awfully low on the scale to me to have a "satisfactory" level of teaching, and "better" is slightly woolly, to say the least.

Mr. Alan Howarth: rose—

Mr. Walden: I see that my hon. Friend is about to get up, and I will give way, but I shall finish this thought while it remains a coherent one.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth is proposing a new clause for more inspection by Ofsted, and I am pointing out that, according to that evidence and other anecdotal evidence that I have heard, the new system is not working brilliantly in schools, so why should it work well in those heartlands of education, the teacher training establishments?

Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend is waxing deeply melancholic. On the logic of his position—that those people who are products of a system can never improve it—and given his view that the system is unspeakably awful, should we not give up education altogether?

Mr. Walden: That would be an option, and in a sense it is one that I have taken, by withdrawing my three children from the state education system, at colossal cost to myself over the years. I begrudge every penny of that, because my friends in France, who have a rather elitist form of state education—and often turn out to have more money than I do—send their children to state schools where they very often receive a good, demanding education, which is so difficult to find in this country, as the putative Leader of the Opposition is about to discover. I am not being vindictive, but I attach a lot of importance to education, and I think that the press will be justified in watching very closely the personal judgments made by the putative Leader of the Opposition when it comes to his own children.
I am not being negative about that; in a way I am being more positive, by pointing up the question, than people who evade it by—

Mr. Enright: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Walden: Let me finish the thought, and then I will certainly give way. I am being more positive than people who evade it by proposing solutions that I consider unworkable.

Mr. Enright: Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that it is wrong for the putative Leader of the Opposition to send his children to a Catholic school?

Mr. Walden: I see Mr.—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. What has that to do with the inspectors of schools? [Interruption.] Order. Wherever anyone wants to send their children to school, it is nothing to do with the new clause before us, which is about the inspectors of schools.

Mr. Walden: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I had a good answer to that intervention, but I now feel prohibited from giving it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) posed the real question, which is that if I believe that we are caught in a vicious circle, which we are, and he accuses me of being—I forget how he put it—negative—

Mr. Howarth: Melancholic.

Mr. Walden: I once wrote a pamphlet on that very subject, called "The Blocked Society". It was a melancholy analysis. The new clause is a perfect example, which is why I rise to speak to it, of the nature of the blockage in this country. It is "Quis custodiet custodes?" My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth is asking people to go into those establishments when they have not—obviously it is only my view—the necessary critical approach to those philosophies, which date back to the early part of this century, to John Dewey and so on, and are deeply ingrained, and have been enormously damaging to this country for many decades.
I must come up with a solution, because it is no good simply stating that there is a blockage. The first part of the solution is to state the blockage and not evade it, as I am afraid that my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth may be in danger of doing.
The second thing to do, which may sound slightly idealistic although I can think of no other solution, is to try to get people—I admit that it is difficult—who are not tainted by what I call "conventional thinking" in those matters, and who are capable of taking an international view and considering what goes on in France, in Germany and even in Russia. One of the few things on which the Soviet regime made progress, although it did not get it right, was education. Those people should consider other countries and ask why we all have such a fundamental problem about education in this country. Even Opposition Members, in their quieter moments, know that we have a fundamental problem—a "blockage", in my terms—about education.
Those people should try to bring together two or three authoritative people—I dare even use the word "intellectuals"—thinking people, respected people, and obviously not all Tories because this is something that is so much more important than politics. They should commission those people to take a hard look at educational establishments, from the point of view of the philosophy that is obviously prevalent in all of them as far as I can see, because all the people I meet say the same thing, and to ask themselves what good that way of thinking has done our country, whether they consider that it is still the right way of thinking, and if not—as seems to me self-evident, but they may reach another conclusion—what can be done to change, in a non-party way, the text books that are used in those establishments.
To return to the new clause of the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth, which I support, they should decide what intellectual guidance can be given to inspectors to update their thinking when it comes to inspecting those establishments.

Mr. Harry Greenway: I am following my hon. Friend's argument with great care and deep interest, and I think that the House is. I hope I do not belittle him—that is the last thing that I intend to do or have the right to do—but does he not seem to assume intellectual sterility in the generation about which he worries so much, and assume that there is no dynamic about the thinking, even though they have been badly educated? If he does think that, I think that he is mistaken. If he does not think that, why does he not think that they can break out of their weak education by the natural dynamic that is in every human being?

Mr. Walden: My hon. Friend makes a good point, and perhaps I am in danger of sounding as though nothing has happened. Obviously a lot has happened, especially on the Conservative Benches, in that field. Even reading the speeches of the putative Leader of the Opposition on education and educational philosophy, which is so closely linked to the new clause of my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth, one senses a certain edginess about what is going on in education, together with a resolute desire not to offend the educational clientele of the Labour party. That sort of edginess, which can even be seen in the speeches of the putative Leader of the Opposition, comes from the dynamic thinking on education that has taken place—among Conservative Members rather than Opposition Members—over all these years. Therefore, it is correct to say that things have moved on.
However, the point that I am making is still correct. How does one implement the new clause with the thinking in the army out there without changing that thinking? We know that that problem has always been the bugbear ever since we started the reforms—we started late, in 1983–84 rather than 1979. We have not cracked the nut. The solution to the problem is not to try to crack it by party-political, ideological heavy-handedness. We must obtain—I hate to use the phrase, but it is the only one that I can think of—a national consensus that there is something gravely and philosophically amiss in our teacher training colleges.
I agree with the new clause, but I should like it to be accompanied by an extremely serious, high-level and possibly bipartisan proposal for the appointment of, perhaps a trio, of nationally respected people. Those appointees should not necessarily come from the educational sphere, but they must ask the question: something is deeply wrong—what can be done about it?

6 pm

The Secretary of State for Education (Mr. John Patten): I have been allowed by my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Further and Higher Education, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire), the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education, who bore the heat in Committee, to have a brief airing today to reply to new clause 2.
I welcome the opportunity to have a brief discussion on issues of quality that are of central importance to the success of our reforms in this as in all other sectors. Labour members of the Committee offered no suggestions on this subject in Committee. They were not concerned with quality and it was left to my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) to raise that issue and to gain an assurance then that we would return to the subject on Report. The Labour party was not interested in quality. My hon. Friend has also, in a probing spirit, as he has emphasised, tabled new clause 2 to stimulate further brief debate.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: The Secretary of State did not choose to serve on the Committee of the Bill. Had he done so, he would have been familiar with the amendments tabled in Committee, including the one dealing with quality that was similar to the new clause that we are


discussing today, although it related to another clause. I hope that, in view of that, the right hon. Gentleman will withdraw his comments.

Mr. Patten: If one looks at the account of the Committee's debate in Hansard, one sees that there was very little, if any, concern for quality shown by the official Opposition. It was the issue of quality that brought my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) to his feet. He made some interesting suggestions, with one of which I shall begin my comments and one of which I shall use to end them.
My hon. Friend's first suggestion was that I should, in a Brezhnevian way, introduce some thought police to go round teacher training colleges to take a close look. I had never thought of that idea, but as it has been suggested by my hon. Friend I shall ponder it.
My hon. Friend was saddened and felt that state schools were inadequate for some children in this country. I visited a couple of good state schools—both grant-maintained—in his constituency of Buckingham last month, shortly before I was egged in Buckingham marketplace—not by my hon. Friend. The egger was much more accurate than the National Union of Students has ever been and destroyed my suit in the process.
My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham referred to the quality of inspection. The House knows that Professor Sutherland, the chief inspector, takes seriously, and will investigate, any allegation that registered inspectors are not being rigorous enough in their reports on schools. It is clear that the inspectors are being tough. Already, 10 schools have been declared to require special attention as failing schools.
That was thought to be an outrageous concept two years ago when I introduced it in the Education Act 1993. It is now part of the warp and weft of the way that we look at schools in difficulty. Local authorities are learning that they must co-operate to turn such schools round. Where necessary, we shall ensure that such schools are transferred to an educational association. A new and strengthened framework for inspection was issued last month. It takes account of the experiences of the first year of inspection and strengthens the criteria against which inspectors must report.
My hon. Friend made the important suggestion that we should consider bringing in international expertise. That is not a matter for me; it is for the chief inspector. I shall draw my hon. Friend's proposal to the attention of Professor Sutherland. I shall draw to the attention of everyone in the Department for Education the fact that we in the Department must do all that we can to ensure that we never indulge in politically correct language and encourage a degree of approval in national life for intellectualism. One of the great barriers to national advance has been that for most of this century there has been such a strong anti-intellectual streak in British culture. That has not done us any good.
My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham feels that there are some difficulties. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins) said that it was important that we got going and regretted the fact that we did not begin the reforms of teacher training 15 years ago. That may be a fair comment, but I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham that we must start somewhere, and we must do so with the tools that we have to hand. I prefer to start as we are doing now rather than do nothing.

Improving quality in teacher training is extremely important. We have taken the first steps towards ensuring quality by setting out the necessary knowledge and skills that all new teachers need. Teachers and their trainers now know what is expected of them. I believe that that step has been welcomed on both sides of the House, but it is not enough. To find out where the best initial teacher training is taking place—to promote best practice and help it to drive out outdated and ineffective approaches—we need good first-hand evidence about quality and the way in which different courses are succeeding or failing. It is critical that we do that.
I think that we are all alarmed—my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth certainly expressed alarm in his notable speech when he moved the new clause—at the evidence that almost half of all recently qualified primary school teachers reported that after four years in college they felt ill equipped to teach the reading of English. If that is not a matter for alarm, I shall be very surprised. I hope that it is taken as seriously by Opposition Members as by Conservative Members.
We read in the recent, hard-hitting OFSTED report of the need for primary teachers to use a range of teaching styles, including whole-class teaching and grouping by ability. I understand that the Select Committee on Education, on which a number of right hon. and hon. Members serve, has been hearing from some eminent teacher trainers—not men and women of the left or right in conventional terms, but people who a few years ago might have been characterised as part of the education establishment—about the extreme difficulties of mixed ability teaching. If they had talked five years ago in the terms that they used in Committee only two or three weeks ago, there would have been a fatwah against them—I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), who serves with distinction on that Committee. is nodding in assent.
Teacher training institutions must urgently address those key issues and the inspectorate must judge how effective they are in tackling them. It is to stress our commitment to quality and to the inspection of teacher training that I have tabled amendment No. 1. Clause 5 already requires the agency to have regard to assessment of quality when making its funding decisions. I made it clear from the time of our initial consultation paper that I intended Her Majesty's inspectorate to be the main source of such assessments. But there will be other sources of quality assessment, such as the Higher Education Funding Council.
Amendment No. 1 reflects the position on the face of the Bill. It adds a reference to any assessments of quality made by either of Her Majesty's chief inspectors of schools—in England or across Offa's Dyke in Wales—to which the agency must have regard. The amendment leaves intact as a second limb the reference to any other quality assessments to which the agency thinks that it would be appropriate to have regard or to which the Secretary of State requires it to have regard.
HMI assessments are, quite properly, set apart as the first and most essential evidence for the agency. The amendments tabled in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth and his new clause today go further than that, as he has explained. His earlier amendments would have added the assessment of quality in initial teacher training to the general duties of HMI under the Education (Schools) Act 1992. That Act


mentions functions with respect to school teacher training as being among those which may be assigned to HMI. However, we could not at that time include those functions within the full framework of the Act because of its limited scope.
It was suggested by my hon. Friend in his notable speech—which both sides of the House listened to with great care and attention—that it would be timely to put teacher training inspection on a firmer footing. I have much sympathy with that view. However, for all the reasons that I set out at the start of my remarks, it is essential that we secure equal inspection treatment for schools and higher education so that all providers of teacher training and teacher education can be assessed on exactly the same basis.
In effect, for many years HMI has had the de facto right of entry to inspect teacher training in universities. The holder of my office would not otherwise have approved the course. That was achieved by agreement with the institutions. As my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary stressed during the passage of both parts of the Bill, we set store by academic freedom—of course we do—and we have no wish to intervene under statute except where necessary—of course we have not. We want to leave as much freedom as possible to higher education institutions.
In reflecting on the new clause, I have given careful consideration to all the options. My hon. Friend said that it was a probing new clause, so I ask him to give careful thought to the following way of proceeding. While not quite as straightforward as amending the Bill, nor as satisfactory in terms of putting HMI's own duties in this area on a par with its duties in respect of schools, I assure my hon. Friend that I intend to secure exactly what he wishes by another route. In other words, I intend to ensure that HMI carries out its important role by means of terms and conditions of grant. Put simply, but not crudely, the bottom line will be no inspection, no funding. That will achieve the end that my hon. Friend wants.
I can tell the House tonight that I propose to make it a condition of my grant to the Teacher Training Agency—[Interruption.] I hope that one day the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) will regret the fact that she has never apologised for the disagreeable personal attack on the distinguished high master of Manchester grammar school, who is assuming the chairmanship of the agency. It was a disgraceful attack on one of the best head teachers not only in this country but in the world.
It will be a condition of my grant to the agency under clause 7 that, in turn, it should impose as a condition of its grant to all higher education institutions under clause 5 a requirement that they must allow HMI unrestricted right to inspect activities on which the agency's funds are spent. I believe that that will meet the need to secure for OFSTED the unequivocal right of access to universities and colleges, but it does not raise any theoretical issues of academic freedom. It ensures that high quality can be rewarded while ensuring that action can be taken where less than satisfactory courses are found.
I hope that that proposal meets with a general welcome and that, in the light of this explanation of our further

intentions, the House will join me in welcoming amendment No. 1. I hope that my hon. Friend will feel able to withdraw new clause 2.

Ms Estelle Morris: I want to deal with some of the issues that have been raised and to speak in this important debate about monitoring standards. I do not wish in general to refer to what individual hon. Members have said, other than to say that I thought that the speech of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) was very sad. It is dangerous when someone reaches the opinion that no one else is right and loses the knack of recognising the strengths in a whole range of views and opinions. My view on politics and education is that we should take the best of all the ideas. No one person has a monopoly on ideas. "Commissar Walden" spoke of thought police and gave the impression that, unless people agreed with him, they had nothing to offer.

Mr. Walden: rose—

Ms Morris: I shall not give way as I would be in terrible trouble with my regional Whip—

Mr. Walden: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I would not usually resort to this rather cumbersome way of intervening. The hon. Lady is so lacking in any sense of irony or humour that she took my remarks about thought police seriously.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. What is the point of order for the Chair?

Mr. Walden: The hon. Lady, having no sense of irony, is suffering under the misconception that I was advocating thought police, when in fact I said that I was against that—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order for the Chair. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Ms Morris) is responsible for her own speech.

Ms Morris: I have never thought of the hon. Member for Buckingham as someone who could teach humour, let alone irony.
It does the Secretary of State no good to pretend that the Conservative party is the only party interested in standards. No one would believe that. However, I believe that Conservatives do have a wish to raise and maintain standards, but they are wrong in the way that they have set about doing so. It does politics and education no good to reduce the debate and to accuse one's opponents of not caring about standards. None of us who has been involved in education has spent years working for and thinking about education, working with children and teachers, for any reason other than to raise standards. We may not always get it right, we may not always agree, but we share that aim. As soon as we take that as our common starting point, we will further the cause of raising standards of education.
Whatever new structure is introduced, monitoring and maintaining standards must be an integral part. Without that, we could fail to meet the original purpose of any legislation. Previously, OFSTED has had only an inspection and quality assessment role in so far as the Secretary of State has determined that, not by statute but by other means.
Therefore, I welcome two developments that the Bill will facilitate. First, following Opposition amendments in


the other place, there will be liaison between OFSTED and the Teacher Training Agency. Baroness Blatch introduced that amendment following pressure from the Opposition. Secondly, Government amendment No. 1 will ensure that HMI reports are consulted when funding decisions are made. I welcome that.
However, standards will be raised only if there are organised and thorough inspections after the accreditation of courses, rather than in order for a course to become accredited. There is little in the Bill about that. Baroness Blatch drew attention to OFSTED' s role in inspecting and monitoring standards as courses continue, but prior to this evening the Secretary of State has been strangely silent on that matter.
Perhaps the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) had that in mind when he tabled new clause 2. I appreciate the worries about that, but I am worried that more than half of the lines deal with disciplining people who break the law. I suppose that, from the "cane 'em and hang 'em high" Member, that was only to be expected.
The Secretary of State has just announced that he would sooner tie the pressure to carry out OFSTED reports to funding than to statute. The Front-Bench Labour team will speak for itself, but I would prefer there to be a statutory function. I worry when one ties funding, which is crucial, to making people behave in a certain way. There is a need for strict criteria against which to distribute funds. That is different from saying, "You might meet the criteria, but you cannot have the funds because you have not had an inspection." I would prefer there to be a statutory duty.
I want to raise some important queries that have not yet been answered. We need a cycle of continuing inspections after accreditation. In school-centred courses, they should be separate from the four-yearly cycles of inspections. They have a separate purpose.
I am concerned about whether OFSTED has sufficient resources to carry out the extra tasks. As the Minister will know, the Higher Education Funding Council for England was concerned that evidence from OFSTED was not sufficiently comprehensive to enable reliable judgments to be made about the quality of initial teacher-training courses. There is now no incentive for the HEFCE to continue to give OFSTED the extra staffing and help to carry out inspections. What will happen if the HEFCE withdraws that support? Will the Government give an assurance that OFSTED will be given the resources that it needs to carry out extra inspections at the quality level that is required?
Understandably, the criteria for inspection of school-centred courses have not yet been released. Opposition Members seek an assurance that the criteria and the standards for those courses will be as rigorous as those for initial teacher training institutions.

Mr. Pawsey: Given the extremely helpful and categorical assurances of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that, if there is no inspection, there is no funding, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 4

QUALIFYING ACTIVITIES AND ELIGIBLE INSTITUTIONS

Mr. Win Griffiths: I beg to move amendment No. 16, in page 3, line 15, at end insert

'except that in the case of training specialist teachers of pupils with special educational needs eligibility for funding shall be limited to institutions of higher education offering courses in collaboration with relevant schools and services.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following amendments: No. 17, in clause 5, page 4, line 13, at end insert
'and to the quality of provision by such institution of training to equip teachers to meet the requirements of the Code of Practice on the identification and assessment of special educational needs.'.
No. 19, in page 4, line 13, at end insert
'and to the quality of provision by such institution of training to enable teachers to meet the requirements of section 241 of the Education Act 1993 (sex education).'.

Mr. Griffiths: I can be brief in discussing amendments Nos. 16, 17 and 19. I hope that our debate will be brief and will achieve a consensus, which such debates normally do.
Amendment No. 16 has been tabled principally to elicit from the Minister an assurance that under the Bill the Government have no intention of going beyond initial teacher training in terms of providing school-centred courses. Opposition Members and those people involved in special education are concerned that the Bill could be used to allow schools on their own to provide the more detailed postgraduate and specialist training of teachers of children with severe learning difficulties, hearing impairment and visual impairment. We want to ensure that there is no question that such specialist courses could be left to school-centred training and that, as is essential, institutions of higher education will be involved.
I hope that the Government will be prepared to accept either amendment No. 17 or the spirit of the issues that I wish to raise. During the debate on new clause 2, the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) referred to the politicisation of education and how he would like such politicisation to be removed, even though he then made a highly political speech. In our desire to have the requirements of the code of practice enshrined in the Bill, we are promoting what has probably been the Government's most successful effort at achieving a consensus among all those people involved in education and the truly bipartisan approach which, sadly, the debate on education has so far been lacking.
The code of practice represents a revolution in education practice. What may have been the aspirations of all those involved in education and schools have, under the code of practice, become specific requirements. It would be fair to say that the code institutes a revolution in the skills expected of teachers. It makes new and specific demands on all teachers, so it is important that initial teacher education should take account of the code, which was not in existence when the Bill was drafted.
The code of practice demands that teachers are not just competent professionals, but classroom superstars. In footballing terms, they are goalkeepers, defenders, midfield players and strikers all in one. That is what the code demands. Already, very limited time is available in initial teacher education to meet all the demands that the code places on teachers. There is a need, therefore, for all initial teacher education courses to have at their heart the requirements of the code of practice.
The code of practice puts in question whether school-centred initial teacher training can be carried out without the partnership of an institution of higher education. Any hon. Member who considers the


requirements in the code from paragraph 2.70 to paragraph 2.84 will be convinced that it is vital that the Bill requires teachers to have knowledge and understanding of the factors determining a pupil's educational achievement and personal development, including the educational, psychological, medical and social services assessments and reports. I hope that the Minister will respond positively to that.
In principle, we accept amendment No. 19 because we believe that training teachers for sex education should be a vital part of their education, given the levels of sensitivity and skill required to engage children in ways that are appropriate to their understanding and development and in a positive moral framework. We hope that the Government will accept the spirit of the amendments and perhaps even embrace them in the Bill.

Mr. Alan Howarth: I should like to say a few words about amendments Nos. 16 and 17. I have considerable sympathy with their purpose, which is, as I understand it, to ensure that higher education is appropriately involved in the training of teachers of children with special educational needs. I associate myself with the sentiments expressed by the hon. Members for Birmingham, Yardley (Ms Morris) and for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) that it is a sad thing if hon. Members assume that because ideas come from the other side they must be nonsense and mischievously intended to boot.
There is a major training task implied by the new code of practice. It is an excellent document, but it makes it clear that all teachers must be involved in the delivery of education for special needs if the necessary whole-school approach is to be achieved. In addition, there will be a need for more specialised training through in-service education and training, ranging from the wide range of skills and knowledge required of the special educational needs co-ordinators to the more sharply focused needs of, say, specialist teachers of severely dyslexic children.
6.30 pm
I believe that all teacher training institutions should be required to effect a proper introduction to special educational needs for all their initial teacher trainees. That simple principle should be more than a matter for guidance. Guidance can then establish the nature of the contribution made.
On the general question of the respective roles of schools and higher education institutions in initial teacher training, at the risk of banality I must say that it seems to me that we need an effective partnership between the two. Admittedly, the partnerships that we have are not always effective, but there are a great many courses in which they are, so I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will not throw any babies out with the bath water.
The Government should ensure that there is partnership, spell out what is required of the partners and take steps, through funding and quality control, to ensure that the requirements are met. Otherwise, I fear that financial and time pressures on schools will lead all too many to economise on their training, and as a result they will fall short of the Government's admirable aspirations as set out in the code.
There is some truth in the view that higher education institutions have tended to deskill schools and teachers in

terms of the school's role in preparing new teachers for their professional careers. Schools should certainly do much more than simply help out the training institutions through teaching practice. Over several years that view has clearly gained much ground, and schools are now widely seen as having an essential role and as sharing the ownership of the process. We now need to ensure that all courses of initial teacher training embody that principle and carry it out.
The contribution of institutions of higher education should be to provide a close awareness of research, practice and policy both in this country and abroad. The multidisciplinary staffs of higher education institutions should be able to add depth and width to professional training, which schools alone could not furnish. I know that some of my hon. Friends are worried about educational theory, and no doubt a certain amount of it has been nonsensical from time to time. However, good educational theory is not disconnected from the real world of teaching and learning, but is a clarification of the principles of good teaching and learning and provides a considered framework for teacher education.
If there is a view that specialised training in special educational needs—for example, training teachers to teach sight-impaired or hearing-impaired children—could function properly without central, substantial and guaranteed contributions from institutions of higher education, that view is unrealistic. I do not think that the process can be divorced from the research and theoretical knowledge that it is not realistic or appropriate to expect schools of themselves to have.
Ring-fenced funding will be needed to preserve the capacity of education departments in institutions of higher education to continue to provide that training. If that is not put in place, there is a real danger that vital centres of expertise will wither. I am not arguing for a monopoly for institutions of higher education; I believe that local education authorities, charitable foundations, research foundations and private sector providers can all contribute. Nor do I suggest that there should not be stringent quality control, but I hope that Ministers will be able to assure me that it is no part of their intention to provide any opportunity for the removal of the contribution that institutions of higher education can make to the training of teachers who will teach children with special educational needs.
I ask the House to consider my amendment No. 19, to clause 5, in connection with the welcome amendment to clause 1 tabled by my right hon. and noble Friends in another place, whereby the Teacher Training Agency is to ensure that teachers are
well fitted and trained to promote the spiritual, moral, social…development of pupils and to prepare pupils for the opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of adult life.
My amendment supplements that general statement with some specificity in one important area. It would require the Teacher Training Agency, in disbursing funds, to have regard to the need for teachers to receive training in sex education. That could be taken to be implicit in the more general wording of clause 1 as amended, but I am not aware of the Government's having committed themselves to ensuring that teachers, especially student teachers, receive such training.
The importance of teachers being appropriately trained in sex education is highlighted in Julia Hirst's research entitled "Not in Front of the Grown-Ups—A Study of the


Social and Sexual Lives of 15 and 16 Year Olds", recently published by the health research institute of Sheffield Hallam university. I suggest that Ministers and other hon. Members concerned for the well-being of our young people should read and reflect on the report with the greatest care. Its findings are sad, and are a reproach to us, but it also offers better ways forward. Certainly it highlights the need for better sex education and for training to teach the subject.
The report demonstrates the vulnerability of the 15 and 16-year-olds surveyed to HIV infection, ill health and pregnancy through unsafe sex and alcohol and drug misuse. It paints a picture of confused and unsure young people having sex, often unprotected, as a commonplace conclusion to an evening's drinking. The summary of findings says that Ms Hirst found that the majority of the group that she surveyed
lead secret lives of which their parents are unaware…For the majority, socialising involves sex and drinking alcohol… They are having unsafe sex without any real acknowledgement of the consequences. They are non-monogamous and share partners…the majority of their sexual activity occurred outdoors, usually in a local park… Most sexual activity occurs under the influence of alcohol… Few group members have clear knowledge of HIV or AIDS and make no distinction between the two. They are considerably misinformed on unsafe behaviours. All appear complacent about their risk-taking, believing that HIV has little to do with them.
The young people demonstrated a poignant indifference to the risks that they were taking. One of them said:
We don't really think about it. We have a joke about who's catching it, and all that. Why worry? If you get it, you're dead, aren't you?'
The research describes an incredibly dangerous situation.
Those young people feel that they cannot find advice or support from their parents or their teachers, although they desperately want to be able to do so.
Julia Hirst stresses the fact that
The group are unanimously dissatisfied with the sex education they receive at school and home… They are afraid to ask questions and perceive adults as disapproving and unhelpful. The embarrassment of adults is perceived by them as the main factor in demotivating parents and teachers from addressing the issues more realistically".
I do not say that the experiences of those young people are universal or normal. I am not asking the House to get the issue out of proportion—certainly it would be good if for once the tabloids were to refrain from exploiting a sad story of unhappiness—but I fear that what Julia Hirst found is all too typical of the experience of too many of our young people.
The report reconfirms the case—irresistibly, to my mind—for sex education within the national curriculum. Children want it. If sex education is marginalised, even as a compulsory subject, it is much more likely to be inadequately taught.

Mr. Don Foster: I have much sympathy with many of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. Does he agree that, in view of the sort of comments that he is making, a system in which parents may allow their children to opt out of sex education lessons is inappropriate?

Mr. Howarth: I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman. I argued that case a year ago when the House took the unfortunate decision that it did. Far from parents being able to opt out of sex education as a separate subject outside the national curriculum, it ought to be integrated

into a number of areas of study within the national curriculum—including, obviously, science, English, and personal and social education.
It is plainly essential—indeed, it is a matter of life or death—that education about HIV and AIDS is reliably and responsibly provided. The findings of Julia Hirst's research support the view that sex education should begin early and be developed through the spiral curriculum. The research reinforces the view that the better the sex education and the earlier it begins, the higher the age at which teenagers will first have sex. I stress that good sex education is not, of course, merely about mechanics, but teaches the importance of good relationships, respect, responsibility and love.
I hope that the Department for Education and the Department of Health will absorb the findings of the research and will act with determination and in close co-operation over them as, of course, I hope that they will do with the findings of the Alan Guttmacher Institute quoted by Miss Hirst. As my hon. Friends know, it studied teenage pregnancy in 37 countries and found that the countries
with the lower rates of pregnancy were those countries with a high degree of acceptance of teenage sexuality, good-quality education about sexual matters and high-quality, user-friendly clinical services for young people.
Those factors apply all too seldom in Britain. It is the opposite of coincidence that, in Britain, we have the highest teenage pregnancy rate in Europe.
All this implies large and difficult responsibilities for teachers, who deserve and need better support and training than we have so far given them.
As I have said, it is a year since we debated the issue in the House and I am more than ever saddened and dismayed at the decision to take teaching about HIV and AIDS and sexually transmitted diseases out of the national curriculum and to restrict sex education in the national curriculum to the physiological aspects of puberty and reproduction, divorced from consideration of values. With the present levels of support and all the competing pressures on teachers, I find it hard to be optimistic about the scope and quality of sex education outside the national curriculum.
I was pleased, at any rate, that the guidance in circular 5/94 made clear the need for skilled and sensitive teaching of sex education appropriate for different ages. But those high expectations of teachers have not yet been matched, to my knowledge, by a commitment to provide them with the training that they will need if they are to meet them. My understanding is that the Government expect sex education to be taught by experienced teachers, who may or may not receive in-service training for it. I fear that that approach under-estimates the needs. It matters very much that all teachers receive good, appropriate training in sex education during their initial training.
A survey in 1992 found that two thirds of local education authorities identified teachers' lack of confidence in teaching sex education as the main barrier to effective provision. Training would build their confidence. The National Foundation for Educational Research's 1993 research for the Health Education Authority found that schools are having difficulty in recruiting specialist teachers of personal and social education. The foundation also found that, where INSET funding was not specifically allocated to health or sex education, it was unlikely that


money would be spent in those areas because of the demand for INSET funding for training in national curriculum subjects.
The Government have made it clear in their circular, and I acknowledge with pleasure, that the scope of in-service training eligible for funding through GEST—grants for education support and training—includes training in sex education. Unless my right hon. Friend can assure me otherwise, I do not think that the Department has provided any concomitant increase in the funding available for this training and no GEST funding is specifically ring-fenced for it. I wish it would be. But, for the reasons that I have given, even then it would not be sufficient.
The report of the working party of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists on unplanned pregnancy in 1991 stated:
Attitudes in schools to sex education would be improved if initial teacher training courses had health education as a compulsory component. That would include relationships, sexuality and contraception.
I am sure that that was right. I am sure that more needs to be done to provide well-balanced and comprehensive support for teachers in training in this area so that they can help the kind of children described in Julia Hirst's research, and so, indeed, that they can help all our children, for whom this aspect of their lives is so very important.

Mr. Robin Squire: This has been a fairly short and concise debate on at least two important issues. I welcome the way in which the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) moved his amendment and, obviously, I listened with care to my long-term hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth). Clearly, we shall think long on many of his comments, to the extent that I shall not respond to them separately in my—I trust—equally concise response. I hope to be able to reassure the hon. Member for Bridgend on his key amendment No. 16, but for reasons that I shall briefly explain, I consider all three amendments unnecessary.
Amendment No. 16 covers the funding of courses for specialist teachers of special educational needs. I made it clear that that is not an initial teacher training issue. Government policy is that all teachers should train for and work in ordinary schools and classes in the first instance and that specialist training, of course, comes later. I assume that the amendment is intended to refer to long in-service courses for those intending to teach in special schools and those are currently funded by GEST provision. However, we have said that we shall consider the case made by special needs groups for asking the Teacher Training Agency to fund such courses in future.
There has been no decision as yet. Agencies will certainly have the power to fund such courses under the provisions of the Bill, but there is nothing in the Bill which alters the power to provide such courses. There are no new powers for schools to offer in-service training under clause 12. That is limited specifically to initial training. Providing one-year full-time INSET courses, like one-year full-time initial training courses, would require new powers which schools do not have. They will not receive those powers in this Bill. I hope that, on that specific point, the hon. Gentleman is reassured.
Amendments Nos. 17 and 19 do not have the same practical drawback, but raise an important issue of principle. We see a fundamental distinction between matters of general principle covering the agency's work to be set out on the face of the Bill and the specific content of courses, which is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's criteria. Not mentioning detailed content issues on the face of the Bill—whether national curriculum, special needs code of practice, sex education or behaviour and discipline—does not imply in any way that they are unimportant issues.
I very much take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon, in particular, about the importance of sex education, but detailed requirements are set out in published criteria and may be adjusted as necessary from time to time and used as a test against which quality judgments can be made. Quality must then, of course, feed into funding, as set out in clause 5.

Mr. Win Griffiths: Under those eriteria, will there be the requirement to have regard to the code of practice in approving any course?

Mr. Squire: I can certainly reassure the hon. Gentleman that—subject to consultation, of course, which will go out on the draft criteria—we would expect to take into account the code of practice to which he has rightly referred.
Clause 1 refers to course content. It ensures that the agency directs its efforts towards fitting teachers to carry forward the central aims of education. The words are fairly well known to hon. Members, especially those who served on the Committee. We were happy to add that reference in another place to set the agency's work in context. It would not be right to weight it towards one area of education only, however important that area may be. All ITT courses must equip newly qualified teachers with the necessary foundation to develop skills in SEN issues. That is made clear in current DFE circulars which set out my right hon. Friend's criteria. Such criteria have been and will, in future, be subject to consultation. They currently include references to special needs, which have been generally welcomed.
Of course, the House listened with interest to the issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon on amendment No. 19, which stands in his name. Some of the matters that he raised undoubtedly struck chords with my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench. He reiterated some matters that he first raised a year ago, and he knows that there is a division of opinion between us on some of them. Teachers must be able to teach in accordance with statutory requirements that govern their subjects. That goes for sex education as for all other subjects. I submit again that it would not be right to bring one item of content of training, however important it is—the House is united on the importance of good sex education—into prominence in the Bill, with the implication that other areas of training are less important.
I welcome the opportunity provided by the amendments for a brief and non-partisan debate on issues of common concern. I hope that in the light of my comments the hon. Member for Bridgend will feel able to seek leave to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Win Griffiths: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Bryan Davies: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 3, line 19, leave out from 'school' to end of line 21 and insert
'in partnership with an appropriate institution of higher education,'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following amendments: No. 5, in clause 6, page 4, leave out lines 24 to 26 and insert
'course validated by an appropriate institution of higher education and provided by a school or schools or by a partnership or association of such schools or by a body established by such a school or institutions consisting wholly of such schools.'.
No. 6, in clause 12, page 6, line 24, leave out '—(a)'.
No. 7, in page 6, line 24, leave out from 'teachers' to end of line 27 and insert
'in partnership with, and validated by, an institution of higher education.'.
No. 10, in clause 14, page 8, line 3, at end insert
'to ensure that all courses which involve schools in the initial training of school teachers shall be validated by an appropriate institution of higher education.".'.
No. 14, in schedule 2, page 22, line 9, leave out 'a funding agency under Part 1 of the Education Act 1994 or the governing body of an institution receiving financial support under that Part' and insert 'the Teacher Training Agency.'
No. 15, in page 22, line 12, leave out from '(2)' to end of line 18 and insert 'after paragraph (a) insert—
(aa) with respect to studies relating to the Teacher Training Agency, the agency.".'.

Mr. Davies: The amendments seek to ensure that postgraduate courses of initial teacher education are provided in partnership with, and validated by, an institution of higher education. They must, therefore, go to the heart of the Bill.
I remind the House of the Minister's words in Committee. He said:
there is…the need for a structured consideration of pedagogy and the theory of education. That is not an issue."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 14 June, c. 261.]
I agree with the Minister. We cannot prepare people for entry into a profession without giving them a theoretical understanding of the nature of the tasks that they will have to perform. That should be common currency in the Chamber.
The real issue that divides the two sides of the Chamber is whether institutions of higher education are to be essential partners in the framing, delivery and validation of courses. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) said, there are divided counsels within the Government on these issues.
The Bill seeks to remove the necessary partnership of higher education in ITT courses. In Northern Ireland, however, the Minister for education, speaking admittedly at the Old Inn at Crawfordsburn on 1 June, but doubtless quite sober and not in his cups, said that he thought that the planning and implementation of initial teacher training in Northern Ireland will necessitate the strongest possible partnership between the ITT providers and schools. It is clear that he recognised that there is an essential link.
Yet Ministers at Westminster are seeking to sustain an argument that the higher education contribution is not necessary. On Second Reading and in Committee the Government have sought to discredit the principle of a higher education involvement in ITT courses. They argued that Opposition amendments—they were accepted in

another place—were technically flawed. Accordingly, in Committee, they removed them from the Bill, apparently on that basis alone. There was no substantive argument advanced that the quality of initial teacher education would be improved by removing the involvement of HE. That is no surprise, because such an argument would not stand up to scrutiny.
The Government are saying now that the accreditation of courses of initial teacher education by the new quango known as the Teacher Training Agency will be enough to ensure that they are of sufficient quality. Validation by HE institutions has gone. It has been erased from the Government's political vocabulary. An essential quality assurance mechanism has therefore been removed. Everything will now depend upon the schools where the school-centred courses operate.
The Secretary of State should have said to his hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden), when he was challenged about the theoretical issues at stake and the quality of teacher education, "I deny your premise that these issues are theoretical. I deny that we need to have a debate about the nature of the education that we provide for our children. I do so because I know what is right. I will ensure that the present practitioners are vested with the necessary power and that higher education should have no contribution and no standing." That would have been a franker response, but it would have been a denial of the thoughtful contribution of the hon. Member for Buckingham. Instead, the right hon. Gentleman blustered about the way in which he was bringing inspectors into this area of education.
The Government, logically, are now saying that it is solely for the schools to come to a decision on the validation of courses. At the same time, the pilot schemes—they were designed to underpin the proposed legislation—contain elements of validation by HE institutions. Four of the five consortia have returned to higher education for support and validation. It is clear that the teaching profession regards that as a valuable contribution.
What other grounds exist for promoting school-centred initial teacher education if it is not to improve quality? It can hardly be argued that there will be cost savings, because the Secretary of State has given repeated assurances that there will be adequate resources for the schools to undertake ITT work. That is necessary against the background of anxiety among parents, children at school and governing bodies that an additional burden is being placed on them without the necessary resources to fulfil their obligations.
There are certain contributions made by universities that schools will be unable to replicate. I have in mind the support services that benefit university students. Those benefits will not be available to students undergoing ITT within schools. Presumably the schools will have to buy in those benefits. Where is economy of scale in that concept?
Let us consider the design of ITT courses. Ministers must be worried about at least one instance of plagiarism of an existing course in higher education by a consortium. That reflects the limitations faced by practising teachers in developing themselves the standards to which higher education has been accustomed.
Does the Bill promote choice and diversity, as the Secretary of State and other Ministers have claimed? Unfortunately not. Schools may decide to run courses in the short term—probably on the offer of substantial cash—only to find that they cannot cope. They will then


withdraw. It is abundantly clear that the Government's measures are causing university education departments to consider their position. In due course, they will no doubt wither on the vine. That may be the Government's intention. Nothing is explicit, but that may be the hidden agenda.
It is clear, however, that HE departments concerned with teacher education will be cut off from the HE funding councils. They will not be in the same bidding ring as other university departments. They may find that judgments will be made. At least one university has already decided, admittedly on the basis of a course about which there were many doubts, that it intends to pull out of teacher training. It has made that clear.
In due course, the result will be more limited choice, not extended choice. The courses available for students who wish to become teachers will increasingly be available only in schools. Recent research at Warwick university has made it clear that in the secondary sector teachers do not have the time to engage in the colossal burden of work that the Government have decided will fall on them.
It is clear that the Government are asking hard-pressed teachers—we all know of the increasing demands that are made of them through the national curriculum—to become trainers in full of the next generation of teachers. That may well be a burden too far. Without a shadow of a doubt, children will suffer if schools have to teach teachers, and governing bodies of schools are likely to express their reservations and anxieties about those developments.
For every instance in Committee when Ministers and Conservative Back Benchers produced Central Office handouts of anecdotes about what was wrong with teacher education in the universities, we already have comparable anecdotal evidence of what is wrong with school-based courses.
7 pm
Hearsay will not do. However, the House is not being allowed the benefit of the fulfilment of an experiment to examine what has happened in the development of such courses. The House is being asked to legislate on the basis of a half-rushed-through operation, which is far from finished.
The Minister must recognise the Opposition's anxieties about the international validity of these courses. We are now in the European Community in a professional sense. In every respect, we will see increased mobility of labour. If teachers are to carry qualifications which are provided not by a recognised university, but by a consortium of schools, from a school which no one elsewhere has heard of, how will they compete with graduates from other universities in other countries for jobs that they expect to secure?
The Government should think yet again and recognise the validity of the amendments. They must accept what was said in the other place, what was moved and passed in the other place and what has been expressed continually in Committee and in the House today: only a partnership between schools and higher education can provide the essential qualifications which our teachers need and our students deserve.

Mr. Boswell: Try as he might, the hon. Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Davies) served up old

hat and arguments which were much rehearsed in Committee and in another place. He added very little to that old hat, except perhaps some new trimmings which were as objectionable as those that preceded them and which, in certain cases, were even perverse.
For example, the hon. Member did not have the heart to refer to the amendments relating to the Audit Commission which would have reversed the trend of the argument that the Opposition deployed at an earlier stage of the Bill's proceedings.
However, we can at least be grateful that the Opposition have added a little variety. In particular, they have added the magical ingredient of the word "appropriate" in several of the amendments. That, in itself, exemplifies some of the difficulties of the Opposition's approach. It is interesting to wonder what "appropriate" means. Is it for the school to decide an appropriate partnership? Will it be for the courts to decide?

Mr. Don Foster: Given that the Minister is having difficulty understanding the meaning of "appropriate", could he perhaps define the meaning of "appropriate" in clause 6(1)(a) which refers to the need for
establishing and maintaining in relation to courses for initial training of school teachers an appropriate balance between school-centred courses and other courses;".
What is "appropriate" in that context?

Mr. Boswell: In that case, it will depend on the decisions of the Teacher Training Agency.
The other points of substance raised by the hon. Member for Oldham,. Central and Royton related to anecdotes about plagiarisation. I am sure that the TTA and accredited courses will pick that up. They also related to the international validity of courses.
I remind the House that the accreditation of such courses, if they are school-centred, operates on precisely the same basis as those that are higher education institution led. The accreditation process, the quality criteria and competencies derived from the Secretary of State's criteria will be exactly the same. There is no reason why they should not be equally acceptable. Given the quality of delivery in school-centred initial teacher training so far, there is every reason to believe that they will be in excellent demand.
I should like to consider the substance of the Opposition's case for one last time. As the hon. Member for Oldham, Central and Royton said, that case centres on amendment No. 3, which provides that schools can be funded only if they operate in partnership with a higher education institution.
Perhaps at this point I can deal with the situation in Northern Ireland. Leaving aside the perfectly reasonable point that it is for the constituent parts of the United Kingdom to determine exactly how to run their own separate education systems, I should record for the benefit of the House that I am advised that, at the moment, higher education is the sole provider of initial teacher training in Northern Ireland. As it has not even embarked on partnership schemes, it is perhaps a little behind our practice in England where partnerships are already a reality. For higher education in Northern Ireland to call for partnerships is to invite its provisions to move towards the position we already enjoy.
The Government simply cannot accept the Opposition's view that prescribing in law that a partnership between schools and higher education is essential would be the right


way forward. That would place schools in a subordinate relationship. It would not provide them with an equal and influential part in provision.
Validation is a simpler concept than partnership. However, we would not have thought so because it took the Opposition rather a long time to discover what it means and to realise that that was what they were talking about, rather than accreditation. However, I do not want to chop words with the Opposition at this stage.
Imposing validation requirements would be just as unacceptable as imposing partnership requirements. The essential requirement is to have accreditation. That is what will deliver quality in school-centred courses as it will equally, and on all fours, deliver it in higher education led courses. Validation will add no essential ingredient. I will disabuse the hon. Member for Oldham, Central and Royton about his reference to a hidden agenda. The only disguised purpose of validation would be to allow higher education institutions a power to refuse to co-operate. It would therefore keep them in control and, in effect, would abort or frustrate the wishes of school-centred consortiums to move forward.
That brings me to the central issue of quality. The agency will be a funding body. It will exercise its direction and control through funding. In doing so, it will operate according to the objectives set out in clause 1 which I hope are uncontentious. It will have regard to the criteria set out by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the kind of teachers we wish to come out of initial teacher training and teacher education.
Directly as a result of that and in the light of those considerations, the agency will accredit those who provide training in HE and school-centred courses. In doing that, and recalling the extremely helpful debate that we had earlier, the agency will be informed by impartial inspection advice from the Office for Standards in Education about quality. That advice will underpin its funding decisions. It will, therefore, be a vital new guardian of standards in both HE and school-centred courses. Right across the piece, our determination is to achieve quality.
In inviting the Opposition to consider whether they wish to press the amendments, I said earlier that I felt their underlying concern must be one for continuing higher education provision. The hon. Member for Oldham, Central and Royton went on in a rather windy way to talk about our hidden agenda. As the Minister responsible for further and higher education, I believe that the Opposition do not need to fear for the future of higher education institutions.
Although the hon. Member for Oldham, Central and Royton did not recognise this fact, more than two thirds of students in teacher education are now on undergraduate BEd courses. The hon. Gentleman will know that they cannot become school-centred under the Bill.
Equally, the Bill does not prevent or preclude universities and colleges of education from offering postgraduate training. Equally, it does not make any schools run training courses; it does not prescribe that they may not involve higher education in the training courses that they and their consortia put together. Clearly, as we emphasised many times in Committee, it will be desirable for them to consider whether to do so, and they will often wish to do so, but it should be a decision for them, just as it should be a decision by the agency, whether to accredit what they do.
We must emphasise, because it is central to our intentions to secure quality in teacher education and to the principles of diversity in choice, that those are and should remain entirely voluntary decisions. We believe in giving schools more freedom to put together those consortia and to provide those courses. It is, frankly, the Opposition who want to fetter them, and if they persist in pressing their amendments, I shall have to invite my hon. Friends to reject them.

Mr. Bryan Davies: In view of that wholly unsatisfactory reply, we intend to press the amendment to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 255, Noes 295.

Division No. 287]
[7.10 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene
Darling, Alistair


Ainger, Nick
Davidson, Ian


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)


Allen, Graham
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)


Armstrong, Hilary
Denham, John


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Dewar, Donald


Ashton, Joe
Dixon, Don


Barnes, Harry
Dobson, Frank


Barron, Kevin
Donohoe, Brian H.


Battle, John
Dowd, Jim


Bayley, Hugh
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Eastham, Ken


Bell, Stuart
Enright, Derek


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Etherington, Bill


Bennett, Andrew F.
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Benton, Joe
Fatchett, Derek


Bermingham, Gerald
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Berry, Roger
Fisher, Mark


Betts, Clive
Flynn, Paul


Blunkett, David
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Boateng, Paul
Foster, Don (Bath)


Boyes, Roland
Foulkes, George


Bradley, Keith
Fraser, John


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Fyfe, Maria


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Galloway, George


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Gapes, Mike


Burden, Richard
Gerrard, Neil


Byers, Stephen
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Caborn, Richard
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Callaghan, Jim
Godsiff, Roger


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Gordon, Mildred


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Graham, Thomas


Canavan, Dennis
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Cann, Jamie
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Chidgey, David
Grocott, Bruce


Chisholm, Malcolm
Gunnell, John


Church, Judith
Hall, Mike


Clapham, Michael
Hanson, David


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Harman, Ms Harriet


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Harvey, Nick


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Clelland, David
Henderson, Doug


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Heppell, John


Coffey, Ann
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Cohen, Harry
Hinchliffe, David


Connarty, Michael
Hodge, Margaret


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hoey, Kate


Corbett, Robin
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Home Robertson, John


Corston, Ms Jean
Hood, Jimmy


Cummings, John
Hoon, Geoffrey


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Hoyle, Doug


Dafis, Cynog
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Dalyell, Tam
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)






Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Pickthall, Colin


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Pike, Peter L.


Hutton, John
Pope, Greg


Illsley, Eric
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Ingram, Adam
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Jamieson, David
Prescott, John


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Primarolo, Dawn


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Purchase, Ken


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Radice, Giles


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Randall, Stuart


Jowell, Tessa
Raynsford, Nick


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Redmond, Martin


Keen, Alan
Reid, Dr John


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Rendel, David


Khabra, Piara S.
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Lewis, Terry
Rogers, Allan


Litherland, Robert
Rooker, Jeff


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Rooney, Terry


Llwyd, Elfyn
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Loyden, Eddie
Rowlands, Ted


Lynne, Ms Liz
Ruddock, Joan


McAllion, John
Sedgemore, Brian


McAvoy, Thomas
Sheerman, Barry


McCartney, Ian
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Macdonald, Calum
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


McFall, John
Short, Clare


McKelvey, William
Simpson, Alan


Mackinlay, Andrew
Skinner, Dennis


McLeish, Henry
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Maclennan, Robert
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


McMaster, Gordon
Snape, Peter


MacShane, Denis
Soley, Clive


McWilliam, John
Spearing, Nigel


Madden, Max
Spellar, John


Maddock, Mrs Diana
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Mahon, Alice
Steinberg, Gerry


Mandelson, Peter
Stevenson, George


Marek, Dr John
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Straw, Jack


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Martlew, Eric
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Meacher, Michael
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Timms, Stephen


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)
Tipping, Paddy


Milburn, Alan
Turner, Dennis


Miller, Andrew
Vaz, Keith


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Walley, Joan


Morgan, Rhodri
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Morley, Elliot
Wareing, Robert N


Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)
Watson, Mike


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Wicks, Malcolm


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Wigley, Dafydd


Mowlam, Marjorie
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Mudie, George
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Murphy, Paul
Wilson, Brian


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Winnick, David


O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)
Worthington, Tony


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Wray, Jimmy


O'Hara, Edward
Wright, Dr Tony


Olner, William
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley



Parry, Robert
Tellers for the Ayes:


Patchett, Terry
Mr. Alan Meale and


Pendry, Tom
Mr. Peter Kilfoyle.


NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Aspinwall, Jack


Aitken, Jonathan
Atkins, Robert


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)


Amass, David
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)


Arbuthnot, James
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Baldry, Tony


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Banks, Matthew (Southport)


Ashby, David
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)





Bates, Michael
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Batiste, Spencer
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Beggs, Roy
French, Douglas


Bellingham, Henry
Fry, Sir Peter


Bendall, Vivian
Gale, Roger


Beresford, Sir Paul
Gallie, Phil


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Gardiner, Sir George


Body, Sir Richard
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Garnier, Edward


Booth, Hartley
Gill, Christopher


Boswell, Tim
Gillan, Cheryl


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Bowis, John
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Gorst, Sir John


Brandreth, Gyles
Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)


Bright, Graham
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Brown, M.(Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Grylls, Sir Michael


Budgen, Nicholas
Hague, William


Burns, Simon
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Burt, Alistair
Hampson, Dr Keith


Butcher, John
Hannam, Sir John


Butler, Peter
Hargreaves, Andrew


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Harris, David


Carrington, Matthew
Haselhurst, Alan


Carttiss, Michael
Hawkins, Nick


Cash, William
Hawksley, Warren


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Heald, Oliver


Chapman, Sydney
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Churchill, Mr
Hendry, Charles


Clappison, James
Hicks, Robert


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Coe, Sebastian
Horam, John


Colvin, Michael
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Congdon, David
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Conway, Derek
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Cormack, Patrick
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Couchman, James
Hunter, Andrew


Cran, James
Jack, Michael


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Jenkin, Bernard


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Jessel, Toby


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Day, Stephen
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Devlin, Tim
Kilfedder, Sir James


Dickens, Geoffrey
King, Rt Hon Tom


Dorrell, Stephen
Knapman, Roger


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Dover, Den
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Duncan, Alan
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Dunn, Bob
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Durant, Sir Anthony
Legg, Barry


Dykes, Hugh
Leigh, Edward


Eggar, Tim
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Elletson, Harold
Lidington, David


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Lord, Michael


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Luff, Peter


Evennett, David
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Faber, David
MacKay, Andrew


Fabricant, Michael
Maclean, David


Fenner, Dame Peggy
McLoughlin, Patrick


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Fishburn, Dudley
Madel, Sir David


Forman, Nigel
Maginnis, Ken


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Maitland, Lady Olga


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Malone, Gerald


Forth, Eric
Mans, Keith


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Marland, Paul


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Marlow, Tony






Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Spencer, Sir Derek


Mates, Michael
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Merchant, Piers
Spink, Dr Robert


Mills, Iain
Spring, Richard


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Sproat, Iain


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Moate, Sir Roger
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Steinberg, Gerry


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Stephen, Michael


Moss, Malcolm
Stern, Michael


Nelson, Anthony
Stewart, Allan


Neubert, Sir Michael
Streeter, Gary


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Sumberg, David


Nicholls, Patrick
Sweeney, Walter


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Sykes, John


Norris, Steve
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Ottaway, Richard
Temple-Morris, Peter


Page, Richard
Thomason, Roy


Paice, James
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Patnick, Irvine
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Patten, Rt Hon John
Thurnham, Peter


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Pawsey, James
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Tracey, Richard


Pickles, Eric
Tredinnick, David


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Trend, Michael


Porter, David (Waveney)
Trimble, David


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Trotter, Neville


Powell, William (Corby)
Tyler, Paul


Rathbone, Tim
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Viggers, Peter


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Richards, Rod
Walden, George


Riddick, Graham
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Robathan, Andrew
Ward, John


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Waterson, Nigel


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Wells, Bowen


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Ross, William (E Londonderry)
Whitney, Ray


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Whittingdale, John


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Widdecombe, Ann


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Sackville, Tom
Wilkinson, John


Salmond, Alex
Willetts, David


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Wilshire, David


Shaw, David (Dover)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Wolfson, Mark


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Wood, Timothy


Shersby, Michael
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Sims, Roger



Skeet, Sir Trevor
Tellers for the Noes:


Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Mr. David Lightbown and


Soley, Clive
Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.


Speed, Sir Keith

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 12

POWER OF SCHOOLS TO PROVIDE COURSES OF INITIAL TEACHER TRAINING

Mrs. Ann Taylor: I beg to move amendment No. 22, in page 6, line 27, at end insert—
'(1 A) A governing body exercising, or proposing to exercise, any power conferred by subsection (1) above shall, if the number of persons attending any course will exceed, or is in its opinion likely to exceed, such percentage of the school teachers of the schools concerned in the provision of the course as the Secretary of State may by order prescribe, take such steps as are reasonably practicable so to notify—

(a) the parents of registered pupils at the school,
(b) the applicants for the relevant course; and

(c) such other persons as the Secretary of State may by order specify.'.


The amendment relates to an important issue which caused an interesting debate in Committee. The amendment that we have tabled is somewhat different from the one which was discussed in Committee. It provides for information to be given to all parents and prospective students, and paragraph (c) provides for information to be given to
such other persons as the Secretary of State may…specify".
We would not normally include such a paragraph in an amendment, but we have done so in the hope that we can at last appeal to the Secretary of State for Education, or, indeed, on this occasion the Minister, in the absence yet again of the Secretary of State. I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would be interested in providing information to parents and would perhaps attend this debate.
We have raised the issue of information again because we found it difficult to comprehend the -Government's attitude when we debated it in Committee. We think that it is important that Ministers reconsider their position on the vital issue of the information which parents need about important developments in the schools. Undoubtedly, if a school is to undertake school-centred initial teacher training, the impact that that will have on the school is of sufficient importance for the parents of any child in the school to be told of that development. I cannot understand why Ministers rejected that whole concept when it was debated in Committee.
One reason why I was amazed by the Government's attitude is that, two days before we debated the amendment in Committee, the so-called parents charter was published—a publication which cost £3 million of taxpayers' money and was sent to every home in the country. It provoked a great deal of indignation. I received letters such as this one, which says:
I thought you would like to know that I have received two copies (so far!) of the 'Parents charter'.
It's all utter nonsense and a complete waste of money anyway.
I am 71 years, with children of 45 and 42!
I shall be returning both to Mr. Patten, and asking him why so much money is, once again, being wasted.

Mr. Don Foster: Is the hon. Lady aware that the parents charter not only caused much annoyance, as she has rightly described, and cost some £3 million but was factually inaccurate?

Mrs. Taylor: I have had correspondence complaining about factual inaccuracies, not least the inaccuracy that parents must send their children to school. In fact, there are provisions for children to be taught at home in certain circumstances.

Mr. Robin Squire: At the risk of going far wider than the amendment, may I put on record the fact that, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made clear, the admirable document thus distributed was not intended as a full summary of legal rights in legal terminology. It was written in an accessible way, which most people welcomed. If people want legal advice, they get it. They would not rely on a booklet of that sort.

Mrs. Taylor: The Minister had a broad smile on his face when he tried that explanation. If the document was not intended to give extensive information, his intervention


was a confession that it was nothing more than an expensive public relations exercise. Perhaps that is not surprising from a Department that now spends £90 for every £1 that it spent in 1979 on self-publicity. Such publicity is one of the greatest growth areas in public expenditure, as far as the Government are concerned.
Like many of my colleagues, I have received numerous letters about the parents charter. It was supposed to contain information for parents. At the time, the Secretary of State issued a press release and made statements about the importance of information to parents, yet when we discussed our modest amendment in Committee two days later, Conservative Members were at great pains to talk us down—it was a painful and peculiar argument. When they did not succeed in doing so, they voted down the constructive amendment that we had tabled.
Then and now, the simple purpose behind our amendments seems to have escaped Conservative Members. In Committee, they seemed unable to decide whether the amendments would enforce on schools some new bureaucratic provision—perhaps the arguments will be used again this evening—or whether they were simply unnecessary because parents would find out about what was happening in schools anyway. The Minister may be indicating which it is, but it is not satisfactory for parents to learn by osmosis about what is going on in schools.
It is a significant step for a school to embark on teacher training as well as teaching children. I would not be happy if such a development took place at my children's schools and I would certainly not be happy if it took place without my knowledge. Parents have an absolute right to that type of information.
The Minister is doing something that Members on both sides of the House said was not the way forward: he is rejecting the amendment simply because it was tabled by the Opposition, as he did in Committee. Why else would Ministers, who had talked of the importance of information, put down the idea of giving information to parents? The amendment is not burdensome; it is very practical. As has been suggested, the information could have been extended to all partnership schools. As we said in Committee, we are willing to take that on board.

Mr. Robin Squire: If, as the hon. Lady reiterates, she would like the provision to be extended to all schools, why is that not reflected in the amendment?

Mrs. Taylor: This amendment is broader and allows the Secretary of State to make provision for that extension. I should have thought that the junior Minister, who is replying to this debate, would have said that the provisions in paragraph (a) would allow all parents of any pupils involved to be told.
If the Minister is saying that there is a technical deficiency and that he will embrace the spirit of the amendment, which is the same as the spirit of the amendment that he turned down in Committee, we may be making some progress. We offered the Minister that option in Committee, but he rejected it.
I had hoped that Ministers would look again at the reports of our debates in Committee, not least because I know that the two junior Ministers present are more reasonable than some of their colleagues in the Department. Obviously, that description does not extend to

their being allowed to make their own decisions. They have to follow the briefs determined by others, which is rather disappointing.
If we are to agree that parents should have as much information about their children's education as possible, what was wrong with the amendment that we tabled in Committee? We have tried to adopt the spirit of that amendment here and I hope that the Minister will have a more constructive attitude this evening.
We included paragraph (b) in the amendment, not merely to keep it in order and give it a different dimension so that we could debate it, but so that we could ask about the provisions for ensuring that prospective students get sufficient information about the number of other students in a school and the full arrangements there, not least because parents can become worried when there are many student teachers in a school at any one time. Most parents do not mind the presence of the occasional student—they welcome it and that is how partnerships have developed. Students have a right to know all the information and that is why we have included that paragraph.
Parental concern will only increase if information is denied. It is not adequate to say that parents will find out anyway, either from parent-teacher organisations or from parent governors. Their methods of reporting back are not always sophisticated or well developed. It is not good enough just to say that that will happen and that parents will find out. Parents have a right to know what is going on. I want that right to be extended so that they are consulted before courses take place. Forward-looking schools will try to consult parents and to discuss those issues with them before they embark on courses. That would be good practice on the part of the school, and it ought not to divide us.
I hope that the Minister will not use his prejudices and the fact that the amendment has come from the Opposition to talk it down. Our attitude to providing information to parents ought to be based on the principle that local parents need local information. The provision of such information would be one key plank of the local information that parents should be entitled to, and I commend the amendment to the House.

Mr. Mike Hall: Following on from what my hon Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) said, the principle of the amendment is that parents have the right to know. If the Government accept the amendment, they will be instructing school governing bodies to inform parents of changes that will take place in their schools if they become a centre for initial teacher training for postgraduates. That principle is right and proper, and I hope that the Minister will accept its strength. I hope that he will also accept that, if the amendment is enshrined in the Bill, it will strengthen the information available to parents.
In Committee, there were no objections, in principle, to the aim of the amendment that we tabled. When the Minister summed up in that debate, he merely pointed out what he thought were the practical objections. I hope that he has had time to reflect on the fact that the principle is the right one. If we need support for the principle, we need look no further than his noble Friend Baroness Blatch, who said:
I do not think that any school would embark on a school-centred scheme unless it were able to convince and in due course demonstrate to local parents that the effect was beneficial to their pupils."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 March


1994, Vol. 553, c. 36.]
Clearly, that is the right state of affairs. Schools should be able to convince parents of pupils at the school that if they embark on the course it will be good for the school, good for the education that children receive there and good for the students who participate in that form of initial teacher training. I do not feel that there is anything in principle to which the Government could object, and there is a great deal in principle that they should accept.
If initial teacher training based in schools is good for the students, that is another mechanism by which the Government can promote the benefits of school-based initial teacher training. What better way could there be than to say to parents that the school wants to be involved in the scheme and these are the benefits of it? It is an ideal mechanism to amplify the benefits of the training.
If schools want to become part of consortia delivering initial teacher training in schools for postgraduate students, that will involve a fundamental change to the school itself. The students will be in school for 24 weeks a year and will be teaching a range of pupils throughout the national curriculum. In itself, that is a fundamental change.
Parents need to know throughout their children's school career whether they will be subjected to a large percentage of teaching by student teachers. It may well be good, indifferent or awful teaching, because that is the benefit of initial teacher training exercises. The students learn the practicalities of teaching and the skills which go with that. Sometimes they will fail, and sometimes they will succeed. But parents need to know that that is an on-going feature of life at the school.
The Government should accept the amendment because they should recognise that there will be a fundamental change in the schools themselves. Teachers in those schools will have another job to do. Not only will teachers have to teach; they will have to become mentors for the students in the schools. One of the benefits of the scheme, we are told, is that good teachers pass on their skills to the students in a practical way. The good teachers may be taken out of the classroom and made student mentors, and they will be taken away from the job that they are good at. Parents need to know that that is a potential for the school if it contemplates that change.
7.45 pm
If I understand the process right, teachers—in addition to their teaching commitments in schools—will have to devote about 40 hours per student extra time for those students to receive the benefit of their mentors. Amendment No. 22 is absolutely essential so that parents can be told what is going on in schools. Clearly, parents have a right to know and to be informed about major changes in schools. I cannot contemplate many changes in the systems and structures of schools more major than that they become schools where initial teacher training for postgraduate students takes place.
In Committee, the Minister argued that the Opposition's request would be unduly bureaucratic. The hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) put it another way and, in a Freudian slip, said that it might be unduly democratic. We think that it was a Freudian slip—we are not sure. There may be other Freudian analyses one could place on what the hon. Gentleman said. He was probably saying the truth, but it was a subliminal intervention. [Interruption.] I shall make no mention of the parentage of

my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Pope). He was acutely embarrassed by the suggestion that his father might be the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth.
I do not think that the measure would be unduly bureaucratic. A requirement to inform parents of a fundamental change does not involve teachers in any bureaucracy—it involves the school's administration in informing parents. The Government cannot hide behind that argument any more. I hope that, when the Minister responds to the debate, he will not refer to what have been termed previously "unduly bureaucratic" problems with the amendment.
We were also told in Committee that the measure may be unduly costly. I am not sure what cost will be involved in informing parents of a change to the situation in schools. I do not think that there is any dispute about the fact that this is a fundamental change, and I do not think that the cost of a postage stamp on a letter to parents to say that the change will take place is over-burdensome. It would be an important step in the right direction.
Another argument against the amendment is that school-centred initial teacher training would be set aside from the school partnership for teacher training. There would be two different aspects—one provided by consortia, and one provided in partnership with institutes of higher education. Clearly that distinction no longer applies to the way in which amendment No. 22 is worded. All schools contemplating any change in that way will be obliged to tell parents about it. That is another practical argument which has been removed from the armoury that the Minister tried to deploy in Committee.
We were then told, interestingly, that parents were already involved in decision-making in governing bodies through parent governors. We have been told that it would be up to parent governors themselves to consult parents about whether they needed to know about any change. I do not think that that is good enough.
I send my son to a school in which consortia are involved in the provision of initial teacher training for postgraduate students. I was not informed by the parent governor that that would take place, nor was I informed by the governing body or by the school hierarchy. I was informed by my wife, who teaches at the school. I had privileged information. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) makes a comment about that from a sedentary position.
Other parents who send their children to the school do not know that that is going on, and they have a right to know. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would be the first to his feet to defend the rights of parents. I know what is going on because my wife teaches at the school. I am quite sure that other parents do not know. We just cannot rely on parent governors to consult their electorate on that issue.
We have been told that the governing body has a range of important decisions to take, of which this is only one. The decision on whether a school is to get involved in the initial teacher training of postgraduate students is important, and parents ought to know. We were told by the Minister that that suggestion flies in the face of reason. What is unreasonable about asking school governors and governing bodies to inform parents that a change is taking place in the school? There are many reasons for arguing that the Minister was wrong to say that the amendment flies in the face of reason.
The final argument left in the Minister's armoury was that the measure was a vendetta against one sort of teacher training. Frankly, that is nonsense. The amendment takes cognisance of the fact that the Minister would like to ensure that all schools involved in the scheme are treated in the same way. The amendment attempts to be even-handed.
It is straightforward, simple, right and proper that parents should be consulted about changes in schools. The amendment gives fact to that desire and principle. I hope that, on this occasion, we do not have matters of practicality placed before the interests of parents. We should give them the right to know what goes on in schools to which they send their children.

Mr. Pickthall: There are rumours that members of the family of my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Pope) have been seen wandering the corridors of the Palace looking for the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey). Judging by the latter's absence, they perhaps found him.
We had some interesting debates in Committee about the nature of and the right to information. One in particular dealt with the Government's refusal to countenance the Teacher Training Agency passing relevant information to those bodies which might be subject to its decisions. One expected that they would do it, but the Government refused to enshrine that in the Bill.
The reasons for the amendment have been outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Hall), so I shall be fairly brief. The amendment hovers around the impact that school-centred initial teacher training will have on pupils and parents in the schools where it applies. The hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins) said in his pious way, in an intervention, that the most important part of the education system was the pupils and their parents. We are glad that he has discovered that, but it surely follows that those are the people who should have the relevant information—pupils when it would be useful to them, of course, but parents in particular, especially those in the process of choosing schools for their children. The nature of those schools could change significantly in the near future.
The reason why parents need that information—and, I believe, would demand it—is that student teachers present problems, under any system. They add a great deal to schools because they are fresh and new and may have more adventurous ideas than teachers who have been at the same school for some time; but they are bound to disrupt the flow of school work to some extent. That is true of schools with only one or two student teachers, and it will be even more true of schools that take on more of them for longer.
One of the most useful functions of the higher education sector, which has been derided by some Conservative Members and praised by others, including the Ministers—I give them credit for that—has been its hard work in trying to alleviate the problem of disruption caused by student teachers. As I said in Committee, a teacher at my children's school who had the misfortune to have three students teaching his class in rapid succession was subsequently unable to co-ordinate a proper display for the parents' open evening. That caused some consternation among parents who wanted to know how their children had been affected by the presence of student teachers. As it happened, the students appear to have been competent, and no harm was done.
Inevitably, teachers—from top to bottom—are distracted to some extent by the presence of students for whom they must be responsible, however seriously they may or may not take that responsibility. Parents need to know the position. One of the factors that make them accept the fact that, for a time, their children will be taught by students is the link with higher education and the knowledge that an attempt has been made to make the children's experience reasonably good.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House have repeatedly supported the idea of partnerships. The evidence from such partnerships shows that schools fear over-exposure of their pupils to student teachers; parents deserve to be able to make a rational judgment about that in advance.
Although parents are probably the most important recipients of the information that the amendment demands, it also mentions
the applicants for the relevant course".
As my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) pointed out, they too are important. Prospective student teachers should be told as much as possible about the quality of the course, its record of success—if it has got that far—and the employment prospects that a consortium course would provide. Paragraph (c) would allow the Secretary of State, by order, to specify other recipients of information, which I think should include local education authorities.
The organisation of schooling is a complex affair in any area. Despite the general tenor of the education reforms that have taken place in the past 10 years, schools are still interdependent and local authorities must still balance one against another in many respects. In the event of significant changes that could affect the uptake of places, for example, a local authority's relations with schools other than those in the consortium could be disrupted.
The amendment would also allow information to be passed, as of right, by governing bodies to the higher education institutions that had formerly provided schools with trainee teachers. That could have a significant effect if a consortium were fairly large and, say, 20 students were removed from the ambit of the local college or university. That is the equivalent of one member of staff, or perhaps more. Whatever view may be taken about that particular debate, the higher education institution concerned should be given the relevant information, as should other schools in the area.
As I have said, schools are not isolated entities. They have links of many kinds with other schools in their areas—not just the links between primary and secondary schools, but those among clusters of schools. The arrival of a SCITT consortium could change all that.
The amendment is eminently sensible. It requests the free passage of information to the people who are most likely to be affected by the results of the decisions involved, and I should have thought that any Government with the remotest belief in the usefulness of a right to information could not do other than accept it. My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Hall) listed the opposing arguments advanced in Committee, and effectively demolished each of them. On reflection, I feel that a very poor argument was put up against a simple and straightforward proposition.

Mr. Robin Squire: Coming to this discussion for the second time, I shall endeavour—in the light of strictures,


not least those of the hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Pickthall)—to advance an even stronger argument, and persuade the House to continue its support for my original line.
The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) and her team have made a number of attempts, in the form of amendments, to return to the gist of an amendment that was voted down in Committee. I shall not rehearse the details; as hon. Members have recognised, the same principle is involved. We are now debating only one amendment, which seeks to ensure that, when schools are heavily involved in SCITT, information about that is made available to parents and others.

Mr. Win Griffiths: Simple.

8 pm

Mr. Squire: As the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) says, it is simple. But, as I shall seek to point out, a number of issues lie behind that simple concept.
First, do the existing channels of information for parents and others—never stronger than at present owing to the Government's reforms—set an adequate framework to ensure that parents and others have the information about school-centred training which they need? We believe that they do.

Mr. Hall: rose—

Mr. Squire: If the hon. Gentleman bears with me for a few moments longer, I shall seek to develop that argument further.
Secondly, if more information proves to be required, do we need primary legislation of this rather odd sort to ensure that it is provided? I submit that we do not. And thirdly—as we have asked the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) every time she raises this point—why does she see an unmet need for information about school-centred training but has made no attempt to secure information flows about school-based training? I am sure that she does not seek to make life more difficult for schools that choose to offer their own courses.
Hon. Members who were not on the Standing Committee—one or two are now in the Chamber—may need reminding that, on any reasonable projection, the number of schools and teachers involved in school-centred initial teacher training for the foreseeable future will be but a fraction of the schools and teacher-students involved in school-based training.

Mr. Hall: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Squire: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Hall) in a moment. As he said in his speech, there is concern about the impact that teacher training would have on schools. If that concern exists, why does not the amendment address the majority instead of just the minority?

Mr. Hall: The amendment takes account of the precise point that the Minister has just made. It refers to schools in general. If that is the only difference between us, he should table an amendment to cover that point. Paragraph (c) of the amendment covers that by dealing with what the Secretary of State may deem appropriate under the clause.

Mr. Squire: I like the hon. Gentleman—I hope that that does not cause him significant difficulties back home—but he cannot get away with that. The amendment refers to

clause 12, which deals specifically with school-centred initial teacher training. Many responsibilities are put on Governments, most of them quite rightly, but it is not a Government's responsibility to assist Opposition Members in putting their amendments in order or redrafting them as they say they wish them to be. The Opposition are entitled to table what they wish, but they must then be judged on the basis of their amendments.

Mr. Pickthall: Even accepting what the Minister has just said, he must recognise that we are discussing a matter of concentration and quality. He is absolutely right to say that parents of pupils in schools that already have an extension of school-based teacher education are entitled to information on that, but the SCITT schools involve a different concentration of student activity. That is what we have been concerned about throughout most of this afternoon's debate. Does the Minister recognise that there is a qualitative difference between the two?

Mr. Squire: On the evidence of my contact with both sorts of course, any significant difference lies with whether the school is involved in training, not between school-based and school-centred training. Of course there are differences but the difference which the amendment deals with is more than the difference between whether or not a school is involved. The hon. Gentleman does not have to agree with me in that respect, but I assure him that, on the evidence of my visits and those of others, it is true. The school-centred aspect is not significant; there are differences, small as they are.
On the adequacy of current information arrangements for parents, parent-governors in all schools have an open line to those who elected them. Each year, the governing body as a whole must report in writing to parents and hold an open meeting to allow face-to-face discussion. The effectiveness of teaching and learning in schools will be reported on publicly every four years via OFSTED inspections. A prospectus is issued each year setting out what a school offers its pupils, which, as well as meeting statutory requirements is, in practice, likely to stress any distinctive features of the school, for obvious reasons.
Given all of that, how could a school keep the size and nature of its commitment to teacher training a secret? Those running school-centred schemes will not want to do so. They are proud of their commitment to becoming "teaching schools" and publicise it locally not only to show that they have been selected as potential providers of high-quality training, but to encourage local applicants to their courses. School-centred training has absolutely no incentive to hide its light under a bushel.
If, despite all that I have said, a school appeared to be less than enthusiastic about publicising its involvement and parents failed to have the necessary information, that could be tackled under existing legislation. For instance, we could use the regulation-making powers that govern the content of prospectuses and annual reports if that should ever prove necessary. Moreover, the agency could use its powers under clause 6 to ensure that information about courses that it funds is made available to those who need it.
We would never make regulations in the simplistic terms suggested in the amendment. The number of students as a percentage of the number of teachers across a consortium says nothing about the degree of teachers' involvement in or pupils' exposure to students in any one


school. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson), who was in the Chamber earlier, is an ex-maths teacher. If he were here now, he would confirm that point.
Were we to go down the route of using regulations or conditions of grant, we should certainly want to treat all forms of teacher training on all fours. For completeness, I should mention how prospective students are to receive information about courses. They, too, will have access to prospectuses, the contents of which may be influenced by the agency under clause 6. Those requirements will bite on all providers of courses—higher education and schools—and allow us to ensure that students have all the information that they need to choose courses.
I could say more, but I am conscious that the House wants to make progress. I have demonstrated that the amendment is, in practice, unnecessary. I shall leave aside certain mechanical restraints. Despite our differences over other aspects of the Bill, I urge the hon. Member for Dewsbury on reflection to withdraw the amendment on the basis that what it seeks to secure will normally happen. In the event of it not happening, adequate alternative avenues exist. If she insists on pushing the amendment to a vote, I must ask the House to resist it.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: May I say just a few words in response to the Minister's arguments? This evening he has struggled even more desperately than he did in Committee to defend the indefensible. We know that he is a reasonable man and that his heart is not in such arguments.
First, the Minister said that providing such information to parents was a simple concept. When we tabled the original amendment in Committee, we thought that that was so and that, on that basis and in view of all that Ministers had said in the parents charter and elsewhere, this might be the one amendment which Ministers would accept. They have struggled to find arguments against it.
The Minister says that channels already exist. My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Hall) demonstrated that there are significant inadequacies. The Minister attempted to create a smokescreen by creating a division between school-centred initial teacher training courses and school-based teacher education. I conceded earlier this evening, as I did in Committee, that I would prefer all parents in those circumstances to find out what is happening in their schools.
The difference between school-centred and school-based ITT is significant and parents should understand its full implications. It is not simply that the funding of a school may be affected by any such arrangement but that, if a school embarks on school-centred ITT, it will have significant additional responsibilities for the education of teachers as well as their training and organisational matters, perhaps including co-operation with other schools. Those strains on already heavily stretched administrative services in schools could be significant. How can a governing body guarantee that parents are told at the right time?
It does no one any good to raise petty objections to this fundamental amendment. Sufficient mechanisms may be in place for informing students; sufficient mechanisms are certainly not in place for informing parents.
The Minister implied that the Secretary of State could use other powers or that the Teacher Training Agency

could use its powers. I believe that the House should express its will tonight, and we should say that parents should be informed.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 221, Noes 268.

Division No. 288]
[8.09 pm


AYES


Ainger, Nick
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Fisher, Mark


Allen, Graham
Flynn, Paul


Alton, David
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Foster, Don (Bath)


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Fraser, John


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Fyfe, Maria


Ashton, Joe
Galloway, George


Barnes, Harry
Gapes, Mike


Barron, Kevin
Gerrard, Neil


Battle, John
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Bayley, Hugh
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Godsiff, Roger


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Golding, Mrs Llin


Bell, Stuart
Gordon, Mildred


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Graham, Thomas


Bennett, Andrew F.
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Benton, Joe
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Bermingham, Gerald
Grocott, Bruce


Berry, Roger
Gunnell, John


Betts, Clive
Hall, Mike


Blunkett, David
Hanson, David


Boateng, Paul
Harvey, Nick


Boyes, Roland
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Bradley, Keith
Henderson, Doug


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Heppell, John


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Hinchliffe, David


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Hodge, Margaret


Burden, Richard
Hoey, Kate


Byers, Stephen
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Caborn, Richard
Home Robertson, John


Callaghan, Jim
Hoon, Geoffrey


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Canavan, Dennis
Hoyle, Doug


Cann, Jamie
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Chidgey, David
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Clapham, Michael
Hutton, John


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Illsley, Eric


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Clelland, David
Jamieson, David


Coffey, Ann
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Cohen, Harry
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Connarty, Michael
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Corbett, Robin
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Corbyn, Jeremy
Keen, Alan


Cummings, John
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Khabra, Piara S.


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Kilfoyle, Peter


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)


Dalyell, Tam
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Darling, Alistair
Lewis, Terry


Davidson, Ian
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Llwyd, Elfyn


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Loyden, Eddie


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Lynne, Ms Liz


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
McAvoy, Thomas


Denham, John
McCartney, Ian


Dewar, Donald
Mackinlay, Andrew


Dixon, Don
McLeish, Henry


Dobson, Frank
Maclennan, Robert


Dowd, Jim
McMaster, Gordon


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
MacShane, Denis


Eastham, Ken
McWilliam, John


Enright, Derek
Madden, Max


Etherington, Bill
Maddock, Mrs Diana


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Marek, Dr John


Fatchett, Derek
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)






Martlew, Eric
Rooney, Terry


Meacher, Michael
Rowlands, Ted


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Ruddock, Joan


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)
Sedgemore, Brian


Milburn, Alan
Sheerman, Barry


Miller, Andrew
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Short, Clare


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Simpson, Alan


Morgan, Rhodri
Skinner, Dennis


Morley, Elliot
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Snape, Peter


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Soley, Clive


Mowlam, Marjorie
Spearing, Nigel


Mudie, George
Steinberg, Gerry


Murphy, Paul
Stevenson, George


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Sutcliffe, Gerry


O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


O'Hara, Edward
Timms, Stephen


Olner, William
Tipping, Paddy


Parry, Robert
Turner, Dennis


Patchett, Terry
Vaz, Keith


Pendry, Tom
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Pickthall, Colin
Walley, Joan


Pike, Peter L.
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Pope, Greg
Wareing, Robert N


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Watson, Mike


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)
Wicks, Malcolm


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Wigley, Dafydd


Prescott, John
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Purchase, Ken
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Quin, Ms Joyce
Wilson, Brian


Radice, Giles
Winnick, David


Randall, Stuart
Worthington, Tony


Raynsford, Nick
Wright, Dr Tony


Redmond, Martin
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Reid, Dr John



Rendel, David
Tellers for the Ayes:


Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)
Mr. Alan Meale and


Roche, Mrs. Barbara
Mr. John Spellar.


Rooker, Jeff



NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Budgen, Nicholas


Aitken, Jonathan
Burns, Simon


Alexander, Richard
Burt, Alistair


Amess, David
Butcher, John


Arbuthnot, James
Butler, Peter


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Carlisle, John (Luton North)


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Carrington, Matthew


Ashby, David
Carttiss, Michael


Aspinwall, Jack
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Atkins, Robert
Chapman, Sydney


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Churchill, Mr


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Clappison, James


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Baldry, Tony
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Coe, Sebastian


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Colvin, Michael


Bates, Michael
Congdon, David


Batiste, Spencer
Conway, Derek


Bellingham, Henry
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Bendall, Vivian
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Couchman, James


Body, Sir Richard
Cran, James


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Booth, Hartley
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Boswell, Tim
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Day, Stephen


Bowis, John
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Devlin, Tim


Brandreth, Gyles
Dickens, Geoffrey


Brazier, Julian
Dover, Den


Bright, Graham
Duncan, Alan


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Durant, Sir Anthony


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Dykes, Hugh





Eggar, Tim
Lennox-Boyd, Mark


Elletson, Harold
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Lidington, David


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Lightbown, David


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)


Evennett, David
Lord, Michael


Faber, David
Luff, Peter


Fabricant, Michael
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Fenner, Dame Peggy
MacKay, Andrew


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Maclean, David


Fishburn, Dudley
McLoughlin, Patrick


Forman, Nigel
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Madel, Sir David


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Maginnis, Ken


Forth, Eric
Maitland, Lady Olga


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Malone, Gerald


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Mans, Keith


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Marland, Paul


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Marlow, Tony


French, Douglas
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Fry, Sir Peter
Merchant, Piers


Gale, Roger
Mills, Iain


Gallie, Phil
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Gardiner, Sir George
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


Garnier, Edward
Moate, Sir Roger


Gill, Christopher
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Gillan, Cheryl
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Nelson, Anthony


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Neubert, Sir Michael


Gorst, Sir John
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)
Nicholls, Patrick


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Norris, Steve


Grylls, Sir Michael
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Hague, William
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Ottaway, Richard


Hampson, Dr Keith
Page, Richard


Hannam, Sir John
Paice, James


Hargreaves, Andrew
Patnick, Irvine


Harris, David
Patten, Rt Hon John


Haselhurst, Alan
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hawkins, Nick
Pawsey, James


Hawksley, Warren
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hayes, Jerry
Pickles, Eric


Heald, Oliver
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Hendry, Charles
Rathbone, Tim


Hicks, Robert
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Richards, Rod


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Riddick, Graham


Horam, John
Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Robathan, Andrew


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Howarth, Alan (Strar'rd-on-A)
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Hunter, Andrew
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Sackville, Tom


Jack, Michael
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Jenkin, Bernard
Shaw, David (Dover)


Jessel, Toby
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Key, Robert
Shersby, Michael


Kilfedder, Sir James
Sims, Roger


King, Rt Hon Tom
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Knapman, Roger
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Soames, Nicholas


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Speed, Sir Keith


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Spink, Dr Robert


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Spring, Richard


Legg, Barry
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Leigh, Edward
Stephen, Michael






Stern, Michael
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Stewart, Allan
Ward, John


Streeter, Gary
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Sweeney, Walter
Waterson, Nigel


Sykes, John
Watts, John


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Wells, Bowen


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Whitney, Ray


Temple-Morris, Peter
Whittingdale, John


Thomason, Roy
Widdecombe, Ann


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Thurnham, Peter
Willetts, David


Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)
Wilshire, David


Tracey, Richard
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Trend, Michael
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)


Trotter, Neville
Wolfson, Mark


Twinn, Dr Ian
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Vaughan, Sir Gerard



Viggers, Peter
Tellers for the Noes:


Waldegrave, Rt Hon William
Mr. Timothy Wood and


Walden, George
Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.

Question accordingly negatived.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Before we move to amendment No. 27, I have to say that I understand that there was a slight technical hitch earlier in that a small Government amendment, amendment No. 1, which should have been moved formally, was not. With the concurrence of the House, I shall put that now.

Clause 5

GRANTS, LOANS AND OTHER PAYMENTS

Amendment made: No. 1, in page 4, line 11, after 'institution', insert '—

(i) made by either of Her Majesty's Chief Inspectors of Schools, or
(ii)'.—[Mr. Boswell.]

Clause 22

ORDERS AND DIRECTIONS

Mr. Don Foster: I beg to move amendment No. 27, in page 13, line 36, leave out 'or more frequently'.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss also the following amendments: No. 28, in page 14, line 7, leave out 'or more frequently'.
No. 29, in page 14, line 18, leave out 'or more frequently'.

Mr. Foster: With this group of amendments we move on from part I of the Bill to part II. Part I was characterised by legislation hastily put together with a considerable lack of consultation and an unwillingness by the Government to listen to the wide range of views and expressions of concern put to them. There is always an exception to the rule and part II of the Bill is that exception.
Following the ebullient remarks of the Secretary of State at the Tory party conference and the original proposals for part II, the Government have expressed a willingness to listen to the widespread concerns and anxieties put to them. As a result they were willing significantly to reduce the size and complexity of part II, notwithstanding some of the worries expressed, even by Conservative Members, not least the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) and some of his colleagues.
The amendment arises because the Government, having sensibly listened to the views of many people who are concerned about part II, added a number of bits and pieces to that slimmed-down part of the Bill in Committee. They

have tacked on a number of matters that seem incredibly petty. The legislation has sprouted a range of bureaucratic amendments in Committee. It seems ironic that those additions were made in Committee at the very time that we were debating in the House the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill, the purpose of which was to set business free from wasteful and time-consuming bureaucracy. It is sad that the reverse of that has happened as a result of the amendments tabled to part II.
My amendments refer to just one part of the additional bureaucracy that has been tacked on, particularly in terms of the requirement in the legislation for reports to be brought forward possibly more frequently than once a year. Such a requirement is out of all proportion. If annual reports are all that is required from large commercial companies, it seems peculiar to make it a statutory requirement for a small part of one cost centre out of many in each university to report more frequently.
It would be largely impossible to produce union accounts more frequently than once a year without extra cost and bureaucracy. Similarly, more frequent information about affiliations—possibly leading to balloting more than once a year on the continuation of affiliations—would be time-consuming and expensive, and would almost certainly lead to a low turn-out and lack of student interest. It would be a shame to include what are, after all, nit-picking requirements that will serve no useful purpose, but could lead to significantly increased costs at the expense of other more valuable student activities. It is difficult to understand the Government's apparent obsession with wanting to determine in such detail how universities should conduct their internal affairs.
Only today the National Union of Students, in conjunction with the National Westminster bank, has produced a survey, which reveals that nearly 40 per cent. of students in higher education institutions face hardship and poverty. The Government would be far better off tackling the real difficulties faced in higher education at present rather than wasting their time with tokenist bits of legislation to deal with a problem that does not exist.
There has been a great welcome on both sides of the House and, more importantly, outside the House for the Government's willingness to listen to the many criticisms about their earlier intentions in respect of student unions. It is a pity that, having done that, the Government have tacked on a number of unnecessary bits of bureaucracy. I hope that the amendments will be accepted, thereby slightly reducing the number of unnecessary additions.

Mr. Graham Riddick: The amendment reflects the concern of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals. The committee did not have the courtesy to send me a copy of its brief for the Report stage of the Bill, but I have seen a copy of it and I know that the committee has expressed concerns.
The provisions mentioned by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) relate to the financial report, the report listing affiliations to external organisations and the frequency with which current lists of affiliations can be submitted for approval to members. The Bill does not state that those events must take place more than once a year. It simply provides the option so that if the institutions, the students union or the members decide for some reason that they want to report more than once a year, the Bill allows that possibility.
The letter sent by the chairman of the CVCP to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Further and Higher Education complains about the level of detail being inserted into the Bill, particularly into clause 22. The hon. Member for Bath has reflected that concern. The model is not the model of voluntary student union membership that many hon. Members—and, indeed, I think, the Government—would have preferred. But it is the one that the CVCP, through its disproportionate representation in the House of Lords, has managed to insert into the Bill.
Hon. Members want to ensure that the model will fulfil the objectives that we seek. The overriding objective of the Bill and Conservative Members is to introduce the idea of voluntary membership of student unions. Another clear and important objective is to stop the abuses that have occurred over the years.
8.30 pm
Subsection (2)(j), (k) and (1) of clause 22, which the CVCP describes as unnecessarily repetitious, actually makes the activities of student unions more transparent. The majority of students might actually get to know what the student union is doing in their name. For example, in one term Essex university students union affiliated or sent donations to the campaign against racist laws, the baby milk action campaign, the campaign against the war in the Gulf, the campaign against oppression in Iraq and the national abortion campaign. If more students had known about that sort of nonsense, they might have acted to stop it.
In December 1993, Swansea university students union passed a motion to affiliate to the national abortion campaign. In the same year, Lancaster university spent £100 affiliating to the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. Again, students and the governing bodies should have every opportunity to get to know about that sort of behaviour. What beggars belief is that in most cases the money that is being used to affiliate or give donations to such organisations comes from the public purse; it is provided by the taxpayer. That is iniquitous.
Perhaps the most blatant example of political campaigning on taxpayers' funds comes from the National Union of Students itself. As many hon. Members know, at the last general election the NUS set up a campaign called Target 70. The aim was to target 70 key marginal seats with the clear intention of unseating Conservative candidates.

Mr. Alan Duncan: It failed.

Mr. Riddick: I have to tell my hon. Friend that after the election the then president-elect of the NUS, Ms Lorna Fitzsimons, boasted of victories in Birmingham and Cambridge. It is important to ensure that that sort of campaign never happens again. The NUS, which is currently trying to promote itself as a moderate and sensible organisation, is actually still involved in that sort of left-wing nonsense.
The chairman of the CVCP wrote to my hon. Friend the Minister saying:
As we have already said to your office we consider these amendments to be a long way from the spirit in which the Bill left the House of Lords.
He was referring to a number of amendments passed in Committee. The CVCP should recognise the fact that the Bill that left the House of Lords was a long way from the

spirit of the Bill that the Government wanted, which the 50 Members of Parliament who were present during my Adjournment debate two years ago wanted, and which the 200 Members of Parliament who signed an early-day motion calling for voluntary membership four years ago wanted.
The CVCP and their Lordships should be aware of the fact that many Members of this House who do not have a vested interest are unhappy with the way in which their Lordships have changed the Bill. If, in practice, this model of student union does not provide genuine voluntary membership and genuine freedom of association, the CVCP and their Lordships will be responsible. If the abuses by student unions and the misuse of public funds continue, the CVCP and their Lordships will be responsible. They should not complain too much if this House tries to tighten up the provisions of clause 22.
If the Bill fails, at some stage in the future Parliament will have to consider withdrawing public financing from student unions. In the meantime, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will recommend rejection of the amendments.

Mr. Boswell: My hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) has, not for the first time, spoken with great passion of his concerns for and experience of student unions. I assure him that I shall not recommend acceptance of the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster).
My hon. Friend, in his perceptive way, spotted the underlying flaw in the amendments. He quoted from a letter I received from the chairman of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, Dr. Ken Edwards. In fact, the concern that he expressed in that letter is mirrored in the amendments. It is based on a misconception, as I shall explain in a moment.
First, I must make it clear for the record that the provision to allow information to be issued more than once a year was not added in Committee. That flexibility was present when the Bill came to this House from another place and had been considered there. Therefore, we have added nothing new in that respect.
My hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley raised wider concerns. We have sought to introduce a Bill under the constraints within which we operate, in a way that embodies the firm principles set out by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in his statement to the House 12 months ago. We strongly believe that the amendments made in Committee—a number of them in response to concerns expressed by my hon. Friend—have strengthened and improved the Bill. They will not involve any excess of or increase in bureaucracy.
The hon. Member for Bath referred to the tangential matter of the hardship survey published by the NUS and others today. I remind him that the authoritative survey carried out every three years by our Department, with the co-operation of the NUS, was last published in December and, not to put it too highly, its findings and the drop-out rate, which has been broadly stable, are not consistent with the assertion in the new survey that there is widespread hardship and a greater propensity to drop out. That needs to be put on the record because we continue to provide uninterrupted funds, which we believe are sufficient for the purpose.
The effect of the amendments, if not the intention of the hon. Member for Bath, would be to restrict to an annual


basis the publication of student union financial reports, details of external union affiliations and approval of the current list of affiliations by union members. That would be restrictive and there would be no advantage in it. The existing provisions in the Bill, which were inherited from another place, give governing bodies the choice of when to publish financial reports of student unions and details of their external affiliations and when to submit current lists of external affiliations for approval of union members, provided that it is done at least once a year. There are special provisions for fresh affiliations, which were discussed during an earlier stage of the Bill.
There is one practical difficulty with the amendments, which is germane to the reason we wish to reject them. If an institution and a union wished to alter their accounting period by having a short catch-up period—so that they could alter their reporting year end in the way that a company can from, say, the end of the fiscal year in April to the end of the academic year in July—they could not do so because, under the amendments, there would be some rather wooden provision requiring them to continue for a whole year.
We envisage the annual publication requirement as the minimum necessary, but the actual frequency of reporting should be a matter for local determination. To put it another way—and those hon. Members who served on the Committee will remember my reference to modal verbs—the issue is whether the particular conjunction is disjunctive or conjunctive.

Mr. Don Foster: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way because it may help to save time. Will he give an assurance that the Government will at no stage place a requirement on institutions to provide a report more than once a year?

Mr. Boswell: I was asked to give an assurance that there would be no such power, and I give that assurance. I also give the assurance that there will be no pressure. It is entirely a matter for the institution. Our proposals provide the necessary and maximum flexibility in the requirement that there should be an annual publication. It is up to institutions whether they wish to report more frequently in the light of local circumstances. Student attendance may differ from the conventional academic year and it might be appropriate, therefore, to report in a different cycle. Whatever the hon. Gentleman's intentions, which I appreciate were honourable, the effect of his amendments would be not to reduce, but to increase bureaucracy and not to increase but to reduce flexibility. I hope that he will feel able to withdraw them in the light of my assurances.

Mr. Foster: I am delighted by the assurances that have been given. I would like to take issue with the Minister's comments about the two surveys to which he referred, but I am sure that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, would rule that out of order. I welcome those assurances and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 22

REQUIREMENTS TO BE OBSERVED IN RELATION TO STUDENTS' UNIONS

Mr. Duncan: I beg to move amendment No. 23, in page 14, line 35, at end insert—
'(2A) The union should return to students who are not or have ceased to be members any fees or grants paid by them or on their behalf or by the institution, in proportion to the part of the academic year for which the student is not a member.'.
The choice that the Government have extended to so many areas of life has not been extended to students. Student unions remain a closed shop—a fact that has been adequately debated in Committee—and the opt-out that has been granted to students is inadequate. The absence of choice is an insult to students and it would be compounded if this little, simple amendment were not passed today.
At the beginning of any academic year, a grant is made per capita to the student union, but if, in the exercise of his opt-out, a student were to withdraw his support for the student union, there is no mechanism for the return of any part of his subscription to the source from which it came. If the student were to cease to be a student, he still would not receive such a rebate. Once the subscription is made to the student union, it is there for the whole academic year, regardless of whether the student wants to opt out of membership of the student union or leaves the university altogether. That is inequitable.
This simple straightforward amendment would provide a pro rata rebate for the period in which the student did not wish to be a member of the student union or did not attend the university and it would remedy the situation. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister, who is a sensible Oxford man, will accept the amendment.

Mr. Enright: Is it not interesting that the Secretary of State, whom we all saw preening himself on television declaiming to the Conservative party conference what he would do about student unions, has not been present for a single part of the debate on the National Union of Students? That is shoddy and disgraceful. I do not just keep my thoughts to myself but say them openly.
The amendment moved by the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) should be withdrawn at once. It is a disgrace. One needs to tidy up institutions from time to time and no institution is perfect, but it is wrong to suggest that the things that the NUS has done wrong are of such an order that a Bill is required to crush it—I pray to the Lord that it will be turned down.
What lies behind the hostility of the hon. Members for Rutland and Melton and for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) is worrying. I have already examined in Committee the problems of the hon. Member for Colne Valley. He used to like people when he came here—it says so in his Who's Who entry—but he does not like people any more; he has taken that out of his entry.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. May I inquire what relevance that has to the amendment?

Mr. Enright: I am attempting to look into the psychology of hon. Members who would table such petty amendments to what is already a rather petty Bill. I am trying to suggest that their motives are unworthy and not consistent with the aims of hon. Members.
The hon. Member for Colne Valley is a strong and unashamed supporter of the Economic League, yet he and the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton talk about choice. Choice for students—

Mr. Duncan: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that I can deal with this without further assistance. The purpose of the debate is to discuss the merits or otherwise of the amendment or amendments under consideration. I do not believe that an investigation of the psychology of hon. Members who may have tabled the amendments falls within that category.

Mr. Enright: I am saying that—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I know what the hon. Gentleman is saying; I am suggesting that it is not relevant.

Mr. Enright: I am talking about choice, which the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton mentioned in moving his amendment. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. I, for example, had no choice about the fact that the insurance company to which I was signed up contributed to the Economic League. To suggest, therefore, that students have some choice is wrong.
What is even worse is that the amendment should be proposed at a time when, as the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) suggested, students are genuinely suffering. Students in my constituency need the NUS and the solidarity—I use that word unashamedly—of that organisation to get by. The National Westminster bank has shown that one in three students is thinking of leaving. That is certainly true in my area. As hon. Members know, as from next September, 30 per cent. of the grant will be cut from students—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman is not in order. Unless he comes to order soon, I shall have to ask him to resume his seat.

Mr. Enright: I am suggesting that unless we have the solidarity of the NUS, which the amendment seeks to destroy in pettifogging fashion, a number of my constituents will suffer severely. I should like to outline those difficulties to show how they suffer. If, Madam Deputy Speaker, you rule that that is out of order, I shall sit down, but that is the purport of what I am trying to do.
The people in my constituency cannot be supported by their parents. One in three of the men are out of work and are seeking work.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry, but that goes far beyond the scope of the amendment. We are dealing with fairly narrow points. This is one single amendment and I fear that it will not bear the amount of weight that the hon. Gentleman seeks to put on it. I now call Mr. Graham Riddick.

Mr. Riddick: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I shall attempt to speak to the amendment. The hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright), with whom I have always got on perfectly well, has not done himself any favours this evening. I suppose that it was mildly amusing when he ran through my history and my curriculum vitae in Committee, but it is not very funny the second time round.
The hon. Gentleman was talking about the National Union of Students, but I do not believe that my hon. Friend

the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) so much as mentioned that body once during his speech. In fact, the amendment does not affect the National Union of Students to any great extent. Neither my hon. Friend nor I say that students should not be allowed to belong to the NUS. If they want to belong, of course they can. That is what we stand for; we believe in choice. The hon. Member for Hemsworth was somewhat off beam, but perhaps he is a bit off form today; perhaps this is a bad day for him. We shall put his performance down to that.
Hon. Members who served on the Standing Committee will remember that I initiated a debate on the practicality of the students' new-found freedom to choose whether to belong to a student union. I am pleased that the Bill introduces the element of choice to student unions, so that students who do not wish to belong can choose not to do so.
In my view it has always been nonsensical that young people who wish to study at institutions of higher education have had to belong to student unions, especially as some of those unions have done and said the most ridiculous and extreme things in the name of all students—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not fall into the same trap as another hon. Member did. He, too, must address himself to amendment No. 23.

Mr. Riddick: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The point is that I want the principle of voluntary membership of student unions to be absolutely genuine.
The original Bill, which gave students the opportunity to opt into student union membership, provided genuine choice, but sadly the House of Lords had other ideas. Because we now have a different approach to the Bill, I shall argue that there is a case for allowing students to have a rebate of fees. That is what the amendment is about. We must ensure that the principle of voluntary membership is meaningful, and that students have a genuine choice. Under the current provisions of the Bill, they may not have such a choice.
My hon. Friend the Minister will remember that we had a debate about whether students who have opted out should continue to have access to the facilities provided by student unions. He could not accept my amendment, which would have set that principle in tablets of stone.

Mr. Gunnell: The hon. Gentleman has already commented on the view of the clause taken by the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals. Does he not agree that the amendment would add yet more detail to what is already an extremely detailed clause? It is already 124 lines long, even before we add the amendment and lengthen it even further. The CVCP described the clause as otiose and unworkable. Does the hon. Gentleman not think that paying back subscriptions halfway through the year would add more unworkable detail? Does he not agree with the CVCP that there is already an awful lot of administration involved in universities, without adding further administrative details in a clause that does nothing worth while?

Mr. Riddick: I should have thought that it had become clear that I do not altogether agree with the approach of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals. The amendment is fairly small, and I think that it would fit into the Bill rather well, actually.
I was about to argue that if the Bill does not say that all students will have access to the facilities of the student union even if they opt out, the amendment offers an alternative approach, whereby any student who opts out would receive a proportion of the money paid by his institution to the union on his behalf. At the moment the problem is that, when a student opts out, he not only opts out of what he probably wanted to opt out of—the political campaigning activities of the union—but forfeits his right to use the student union facilities.

Mr. Don Foster: Following the logic of his argument, does the hon. Gentleman agree that a student who opts out of attending lectures should be entitled to a fee rebate for the lecture course, and that a student who opts out of using the library should get a rebate, too?

Mr. Riddick: I suppose that that is the sort of stupid intervention that one would expect from the Liberal Democrats.
The sums paid by institutions to student unions vary significantly from institution to institution. If the money were paid to the student who opted out that would provide a tangible gain for him. Indeed, a fees rebate would mean that a student's choice whether to leave the student union would be based on a reasoned judgment of whether he could get better value from other student bodies or outside bodies, as well as on issues of conscience. Certainly it would give the student unions a real incentive to retain student membership—and they could do that by providing good-quality services and by being more responsible and representative.
Therefore, if students opt out of student union membership, either they should receive the proportion of the fee paid to the union by the institution on their behalf, or alternatively, if the money continues to be paid to the union, they should be permitted continued access to the union facilities.
If the Minister cannot accept the amendment I hope that he will spell out clearly the fact that the Government expect student unions to allow students who opt out of union membership to continue to use the facilities. Indeed, we made some good progress on that point in Committee, because several Labour Members went so far as to agree with that. It is important that my hon. Friend the Minister, and perhaps the Opposition spokesman, will reinforce that point again. The amendment is about giving genuine choice to students, and I hope that my hon. Friend will give a positive response.

Mr. Bryan Davies: That it should come to this: that the carnivores of the Conservative right wing should be reduced to tabling an amendment as meek and mild as this, trying to attack student unions on the basis of some concept about rebates.
I may add that Conservative Members should show a little delicacy when talking about the openness with which funds are used by significant bodies. We are all too well aware of the fact that they are members of an association, a political party, that is staggeringly coy about donations, whether given or received. One would have thought that there would have been an element of delicacy in the drafting of such an amendment.
There are several real anxieties about the amendment, and I shall put them in straightforward terms to the hon.

Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan). First, I know that he is thinking of the model of the large, aggressive, politically challenging major university union, immensely damaging to Conservative interests and campaigning on education issues. But the reason why such a union may operate against Conservative interests is contained in the policies that the hon. Gentleman has supported and the Government have carried out.
I remind the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton that there are other student unions as well. For example, in further education colleges the contributions per student may be about £1.20 per year. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that we should put into legislation a requirement that when a student leaves a college for some reason, or withdraws from the student union, or does not participate as fully as he wishes, he will be able to claim back a fraction of that £1.20? Is he saying that the institution would have to set up some machinery whereby that fraction of £1.20 should be refunded? Of course not. It is ludicrous nonsense and it reflects the fact that some Conservative Members are more concerned with indulging their ideological predispositions than with looking at the reality of education.
What kind of organisations do Conservative Members belong to or can they reflect upon which can budget easily on the basis of people being able to withdraw their subscriptions over part of a year? It would be extremely difficult for most organisations to cope with that if they were anything like significant employers. Many student unions have quite large turnovers and employ professional staff. How would they cope if there were a withdrawal of a substantial amount of resources midway through the year?
It should be recognised that, of course, the student union grant is a block grant for all facilities. Although the student may wish to withdraw himself from certain functions of the student union, the amendment's intentions would be extremely difficult to implement when that student still had access to services provided by the student union, such as heating and lighting of a building, health and safety provisions, insurance, and so on. How would it be possible for an institution to prevent some students from benefiting in part from some of the generalised services, while seeking to refund them for services which they no longer accept?
I shall address the following point to the Minister as well. I have no doubt that the model that the Government have in mind in this aspect of the Bill is a group of people of political principle who decide that the student union has pursued an action which they no longer wish to support and the Government deem that such groups ought to have the democratic right to withdraw. We all respect such a model because it has a democratic concept behind it.
The worry is that, apart from people withdrawing from the student union on such political grounds, we may see minority groups of students withdrawing for a whole range of different reasons. Obviously, there are many ethnic minorities in our student bodies. They may want to withdraw from the student union on the grounds that it provides certain facilities which they would like to see provided in a slightly different way. They might want more no-smoking areas or areas where people could be quiet, or provision to be made for a particular diet in the refectory. If the student union fails to provide such facilities, the Bill puts an obligation on the institution to make good any deficit.
9 pm
I ask the Minister to consider that point seriously, because there are anxieties that higher education institutions will have burdens placed on them as a result of opting out by students, which have not been envisaged up to now—certainly not in the arguments put forward by the Minister. That shows how difficult this part of the Bill is. Therefore, if the Minister accepts the complicating, unhelpful amendment moved by the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton and, somewhat predictably, supported by the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick), he will be piling additional burdens on an area of the Bill that I and many people involved in education to a much greater extent than I am already foresee leading to untold trouble for our institutions in ways that the Government have not recognised.

Mr. Boswell: This has been an interesting debate, which has enabled us to clarify a number of issues of principle and of detailed application of the proposed legislation. I should let the House know at the outset that I do not propose to advise my hon. Friends to accept the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan), although I understand the spirit and sentiment in which he has moved it. I shall outline the ways in which we are addressing his concerns and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) in a moment.
I shall deal first with the comments made by Opposition Members. Frankly, the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) was somewhat below his best. He was particularly ungracious in his remarks about the Secretary of State and somewhat hysterical in his remarks about the general position of students.
No one is pretending that everything in the garden is lovely for students or that they have ample and huge funds. Of course that is not the case. Nevertheless, the real value of the package available to them is maintained year by year in terms of what they have to spend while they are students. Moreover, when one measures the drop-out rate on an objective basis, one sees that it is not generally increasing. I should add that for the past four years we have included the access funds as well. That is immensely useful in meeting the concerns of students who are in difficulties. The funds are administered by the institutions.
The hon. Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Davies) gave tongue to his concerns and, understandably, expressed his personal anxieties about the amendment. He talked about the various types of provision and the wide range of facilities offered by student unions from the large, professionally staffed ones to those that are run on a shoestring, perhaps in further education colleges. The hon. Gentleman could have given the example of an Oxford or Cambridge junior common room. We acknowledge that there is a wide range of provision.
The hon. Member for Oldham, Central and Royton invented, perhaps, a Government model and suggested that we saw a group of politically motivated persons, or people not necessarily motivated by any other sentiment than dissatisfaction with their union, exercising their right of choice and opting out. The hon. Gentleman argued against that and said that there could be a series of principled withdrawals to force changes of provision or to avail those concerned of the provisions of the clause.
The anti-discrimination or unfair disadvantage provisions that we debated in Committee are exactly what they

are set out to be. They are directed to institutions or unions which set things up in a way that creates an unfair disadvantage for students. These provisions enable a group of students to claim that they are being unfairly disadvantaged. They do not prescribe that there should be exact equivalence. The hon. Member for Oldham, Central and Royton knows that elsewhere in the Bill we have provided that institutions are required to give details of the services that they offer, both through the student union channel and outside it. It should be possible, therefore, to make an informed choice.
I have followed some of the speculation that has ensued and I seek to convince the House that it is somewhat alarmist. I assure the hon. Gentleman, if I did not make it clear earlier, that we have received a number of comments from the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals. It is my intention to reply to the committee's letter and my reply will be on the record by the time those in another place complete their consideration of the Bill.
I assure my hon. Friends that I understand the sentiments underlying the amendment to which they spoke. It is important in principle that students who choose not to belong to a union should not have to pay for services that they do not receive. They should not have to pay for the cake, as it were, and not receive the biscuit.
The Government have given an undertaking that public funding from which institutions provide services to students will not be altered or reduced on account of the reforms set out in the Bill. Institutions need that funding to maintain services for opted-out students.
It might be for the convenience of the House if I mention briefly the various channels—the audit trail, as it were—along which public money flows and makes its way through the system. The moneys come from the Government to the funding council. They move from the funding council to the institution and onwards to the student union. At no stage is there an earmarked amount of Government funds for the student union. Nor is such funding contingent on a particular level of union membership.
When we reach the levels of the institution and the student union, there is an intermingling of private sources of funds, which must be taken into account. As has been said, an institution may typically give a block grant to a student union without earmarking it, for example, as £X to the rugby club, £Y for the debating society, and so forth. It is a highly unhypothecated system and we would not seek to intervene in the process.
Having said that, however, I agree with my hon. Friends that the right to choose whether to belong to a student union is central to our student union reforms. It was on the front of the statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State a year ago. It requires—and we are determined to ensure that it achieves—a real choice. Indeed, that is exactly the point in respect of which my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton led his amendment. It is no good just talking about the voluntary principle: there must be a real exercise of choice. That must mean that those who decide not to join the union must not face such a loss or disadvantage as to render it a hollow option. We therefore amended the Bill to ensure that there would be no unfair disadvantage as a result of making that choice.
There are bound to be differences between union and non-union members. For example, students who opt out cannot expect to take part in elections. We explored that point in Committee. Opting out cannot be cost-free.


However, students should be able to weigh up the advantages and disadvantages of membership, with due transparency, knowing what they will get and without fear of discrimination or loss of access to important services.
We have already discussed with the representative bodies the importance of ensuring that services remain available to non-members. To underpin that, we have confirmed that institutional budgets will not be reduced on account of the number of students opting out. We have also discussed with those representative bodies the principle—and this relates closely to the amendment—of fair treatment of self-financing students who opt out, and the institutions understand that point.
Where self-financing students opt out, but continue to receive services through the union, institutions will need to decide whether a reduced fee, in proportion to any reduction in services, would be fair and appropriate. We do not think that it is appropriate to require the diversion of money used at present to provide services for all in the way that my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton suggests. We believe that that is too prescriptive. It is also a little too negative.
From the discussions that we have had and the assurances that we have received, we expect that institutions will wish to continue to provide services for all students, including those who opt out. They may be provided in several ways, either separately or on an agency arrangement through the student union. However, we expect institutions to continue to provide those services and they will therefore need to retain the funds in their hands to ensure that those services are maintained.
We believe in a real principle of choice and I am at one with my hon. Friends in that regard. That is extremely important. We believe in non-discrimination and fairness in the way matters operate. We believe in transparency so that people know where they are. We understand from the institutions their readiness to continue to provide services for all students, with the qualifications that I have given, but on the basis of non-discrimination or unfair disadvantage.

Mr. Bryan Davies: May we be clear about this? I understand that where it can be readily identified that funds have been reserved because students have opted out, a deduction can be made from the contribution to the student union. However, there will clearly be a loss of economies of scale. It will be extremely difficult to quantify and to separate certain services in those terms. Will institutions therefore be able to look to the Government for supplementary resources to take account of the fact that the grant saved will be insufficient to make up for the deficit in facilities that will occur?

Mr. Boswell: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's seductive premise, nor his conclusion. In most cases, as I have already said, institutions wish to continue the services. We have received that set of assurances from the institutions, so the point about economies of scale would probably not arise in practice. On the hon. Gentleman's conceptual point, I have already made it clear that this is not hypothecated money. Any particular needs of institutions at any one time will be considered on their

merits by the respective funding councils in the light of the resources that we make available to that funding council. I can give the hon. Gentleman no clearer assurance than that.
We expect the services to continue. We believe in the principle of a free, real and transparent choice. For those reasons, although I fully understand the spirit in which my hon. Friend moved the amendment, I invite him to withdraw it, as we are not able to accept it.

Mr. Duncan: In view of my hon. Friend's continents, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Order for Third Reading read.

Mr. Boswell: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I commend the Bill to the House for its very clear merits. Part I establishes a specialist agency to facilitate teacher training, with very clear and commendable objectives, which are set out in clause 1, to contribute to raising the standards of teaching, to promote teaching as a career, to improve the quality and efficiency of all routes into the teaching profession, and to secure the involvement of schools in all courses and programmes for the initial training of school teachers.
Only those blinded by prejudice or, perhaps, crippled by excess conservatism, could suggest that such a body will be anything other than a force for good in such an important sector. We believe unashamedly in the concept of a specialist, dedicated body with a specific remit to raise quality and standards in teacher training, and we will deliver it through the Bill.
On Second Reading, the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) said that the Opposition would focus on school-centred training in later debates. My word, in that respect alone she was certainly right. Most effort in Committee was spent by the Opposition on a stubborn defence of the right of universities to hold the ring on teacher training—in effect, to decide whom to let in as competitors to their own provision. We tried hard to convince the Opposition that our purpose was to provide a measure of choice and diversity. We did not seek to subvert higher education provision of teacher education. We seek to provide an alternative which will be judged on its merits and will be accredited by the same body.
This House has made very clear on Second Reading, in Committee and today its views about our concept. It has endorsed the principles of choice and diversity within a framework of high quality, as now reflected in the Bill. It could not accept the unclear words that were added to the Bill in another place, and it also chose not to accept any of the many alternatives that were offered by Opposition Members with the same purpose of, in effect, compelling the participation of higher education in school-centred initial teacher training. We have no objection to its involvement; but we do not compel it to take place. That has been the substance of the matter, although it was only briefly touched upon.
Inevitably, the Committee stage, which was good-natured, highlighted a number of different and interesting perspectives on the provision of teacher education. Many of us will have enjoyed hon. Members' contributions, and I hope that we have learnt something from them. On the


whole, it has been a valuable and good-natured series of discussions, even if we were unshakeable, as we felt we should be, on the main principle which I have discussed.
In the relatively long hours of a Committee stage, it is usually possible to find out a number of points about the Opposition's policies. As you will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, it is not possible at the Dispatch Box to question the Opposition about the conduct of their policies from time to time. I was slightly disappointed with the responses of the hon. Member for Dewsbury and her hon. Friends. In spite of our questioning, we did not hear whether she supported the boycott of tests by one out of six teacher unions. We were hoping to hear about that but we did not. Can the hon. Lady tell us now?

Mrs. Ann Taylor: Can the Minister tell us where that is in the Bill?

Mr. Boswell: A lot of parents will want to know what the hon. Lady and her party think about it.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister, like other hon. Members, must adhere to the proper rules. The rule is that on Third Reading one debates what is in the Bill.

Mr. Boswell: Indeed. I was extremely interested in a number of other issues that were not raised in Committee, such as grant-maintained schools and specialised teacher assistance, which come within the concerns of quality and choice in teacher training.
It is interesting—and I give due credit to Opposition Members—that the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) did not turn up during our considerations today, despite his emphasis on education. He expressed a certain interest in teacher assistance, which I thought was coming at least a little bit our way on that matter. I shall be strictly fair to the hon. Gentleman. We agreed on one point which was entirely germane to the Bill, and it came out clearly from it. He said that he welcomed the proposal—as I do—by the National Union of Students to seek charitable status. I hope that that proposal—painfully slow as it always is, because it must be painstaking-will proceed. That will be a positive gain from the Bill, as will the detailed provisions of the student union clauses we have been discussing.
For the most part, I felt that on the central issue of teacher training, we all aspire to securing quality, but we must find practical means and effective delivery to ensure that we get it. The hon. Lady and her colleagues showed only the splendour of unreconstructedness.
Part II of the Bill secures much greater accountability in the working of student unions and real choice about whether they can join, should join or choose to join those bodies. Those sound principles are not the subject of dispute. The Bill includes a good and workable method of putting them into practice, precisely in line with the objectives and principles that my right hon. Friend set out last year.
In part II, we have a structure which was introduced with common consent in another place. It provides a framework of good practice for universities and colleges to implement without bureaucratic interference from the centre; and each in its own appropriate way. We have in this place made some improvements which are designed to ensure that the choice for students on whether to belong is

real and, as promised before the Bill left another place, to enhance the information provisions to increase transparency.
Put simply, I believe that the Bill should pass into law as soon as possible to allow its full benefits of extending choice and raising quality to be realised. I hope that those in another place will be able swiftly to endorse the amendments that this House has made in the spirit of greater choice and accountability, in which they were clearly intended.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: We should welcome back the late Secretary of State, who clearly could not be bothered to turn up for much of the debate. Perhaps that is not surprising because he does not know the Bill well, not having served on the Committee. It would have been interesting to hear his swansong this evening, but it was not to be.
I shall take up a point made by the Minister when he said that we concentrated most of our attention in Committee on part I of the Bill. That is true. I intend to concentrate most of my brief remarks this evening on part I as well, because I regard it as the most important part of the Bill and, in a sense, because I am charitable by nature and do not want to add to the humiliation of Ministers, especially when they have already been reminded of the rhetoric about student unions which has been used by the Secretary of State on other occasions. Perhaps the Secretary of State has suffered sufficient humiliation recently without our repeating some of his more extravagant statements from the Tory conference.
Unfortunately, the Secretary of State missed the comments of the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick), to whom I shall certainly give way.

Mr. Riddick: A significant number of teachers who are members of the National Union of Teachers will be directly affected by part I of the Bill. Will the hon. Lady join me in urging those NUT members to stop their boycott of tests?

Mrs. Taylor: Even the hon. Gentleman's intervention is too contrived to be in order on this occasion. Perhaps he would be interested in reminding his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State of what he said earlier, while his right hon. Friend was absent. The hon. Member was reminding us that part II of the Bill was a long way from "the spirit" of the original Bill. He said that by way of complaint. Opposition Members very much welcome that change in the Bill, however. This is one occasion on which the other place did a very good job of improving legislation that was seriously flawed.
In the very brief time that I wish to take, I shall remind the Minister of some of the questions that are still important and which he should be reminded of before the Bill is granted its final passage through this House.
First, I should repeat what Opposition Members said in the Standing Committees on other education Bills. It is wrong when quango after quango is appointed by the Secretary of State alone, and that situation cannot continue. I say that as a shadow Secretary of State, as one who would very much like to sit on the Government Benches, and as one who would not always want the Secretary of State's powers to be curtailed.
We really need a system that is not so open to political abuse. The system that we have suggested, in which members of national educational quangos would be approved by the Select Committee on Education, is one which a serious Government and people who are seriously interested in democracy ought to take further.
Secondly, on the pace of change, the Secretary of State once said that change in education should be evolutionary and not revolutionary. During the past two years, as far as I can see, he has done nothing to ensure that that is the case. We have had rapid change on rapid change, which is causing serious concerns in education, as is the fact that the Government are going ahead with this legislation before the results of the pilot scheme have been announced.
Other specific questions were not answered in Committee and were not touched on today, such as the European validity of the qualifications that prospective teachers will get from courses. That is an extremely important question and one which Ministers ought to be willing to answer, for the sake of the prospective students
Also, the Minister never told us why the Government are taking these first steps to deprofessionalise teaching, when other Ministers are moving in the opposite direction, for example with nursing.
The central consideration must be quality—whether any of the measures in the Bill will improve, or have the potential to damage, the quality of teachers. Our concerns remain. They have not been dealt with adequately throughout our debates on the Bill.
The Minister said that we were stubborn in our defence of universities, but that is not the case. We are stubborn in our defence of the principle of partnership. Teachers should have both higher education and practical experience. In Committee, both Ministers frequently praised that partnership, and it should be an essential part of the provision. The principle of partnership should therefore be incorporated in the Bill.
Ministers have heard on other occasions the information about schemes that have been tried in the recent past. Mention was made this evening of the role of OFSTED. Ministers will recall the OFSTED report on the articled teacher scheme, which said that the degree of inconsistency in the scheme was more evident than in conventional postgraduate certificate of education courses.
That potential for inconsistency, a reduction in quality and a patchiness—with qualifications that do not mean what the students might think they mean—are at the heart of our concerns about the Bill. Ministers have said that we have not provided all of the solutions. Perhaps a Bill that starts off in a confrontational way without a proper consultation and which is rushed through is not one that is open to much constructive amendment. We did attempt constructive amendment, and we tried to concentrate on quality issues.
We tried to resolve the dilemma that Government Members often seem to face of not being quite sure whether they think most teachers are rubbish or are doing a good job. We saw that dilemma with the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins), who was somewhat scathing in many of his comments.
From Second Reading onwards, we have suggested many of the issues that should be developed and looked at with regard to teacher education. The need for a core

curriculum and the issue of special educational needs were discussed, and there should be—I think that there could be—cross-party agreement on what is needed for prospective teachers. We talked about the need for better induction, better support teachers and more in-service training.
Ministers seemed to have fixed minds from the start. We got the impression in Committee that the Ministers saw the merits of many of our arguments and, left to their own devices, might have been able to come up with some modest amendments which could have improved the Bill. The Bill could damage teacher education in this country seriously, and could thereby damage the educational opportunities for our children.
I end by reminding the House of what the Secretary of State said on another occasion. He said that if we legislate in haste, we can repent at leisure. The Secretary of State may have a lot of leisure for his repentance, but, in the meantime, our children's education could be damaged.

Mr. David Jamieson: The Bill came from the Lords to the House of Commons in a tattered state with bits taken off it. It staggered through Committee and tonight it has come to us for its final stages here. The two Ministers tonight—the Tweedledum and Tweedledee of the education world—have not only been singularly unconvincing but also singularly unconvinced in what they told the House.
I asked myself tonight whether I would buy a used car from either of the two Ministers. They wax lyrical about the vehicle of change which they have presented in the Bill, but I would not buy a Ford Anglia from those guys. They have sold us a horse and cart from the monitorial age, and we have teacher training which comes from the "learning at Nelly's knee" syndrome.
Like so many of the Government's education policies and so many other Tory policies, the measure was spawned by denigrating, destroying and undermining all that is good at the moment. The Government create a climate in which almost any change and policy put forward can be accepted. We know where the policies come from. They come from the Centre for Policy Studies and from the pen of Sheila Lawlor, and that is how the Bill has come to pass.
It was spawned in response to the sort of scare stories that we heard from the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady O. Maitland), whom I notice has been very much absent from this debate. Here we have a solution to the problem of teacher education that is still looking for the problem.
Where is the massive support for this proposal? I have travelled around the country with the Select Committee on Education, and one sight that I have not seen is parents marching with banners reading "We want more students clogging up our children's classes."
Let us consider one or two of the practicalities of the Bill. Opposition Members want broad-based teacher education: we believe that all teachers need practical experience, but that experience should be gained in several schools. Many students are currently trained in only one or two. We also believe that their education should be underpinned by theory, and placed in a context of knowledge.
A good teacher training course should include some element of the history of education, and provide knowledge of how children learn and an understanding of


the social context in which they live. Moreover—as the Secretary of State will doubtless agree—student teachers should learn about the national curriculum, testing and many of the other measures introduced by the Government.
How will the Teacher Training Agency and the new teacher training scheme work? The Select Committee—and no doubt other hon. Members who have visited schools around the country—encountered a common criticism. The expression that we heard so often from heads and governors was "innovation overload": because too many changes and new ideas had been imposed at the same time, teachers had been bogged down with paperwork and bureaucracy—ticking forms, filling in boxes and dealing with the shifting ground of an ever-changing national curriculum, sometimes with poor facilities. On top of that, they are having to write courses for teacher trainees.

Dr. Robert Spink: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Jamieson: I would, but I do not wish to subject the House to the banalities that the hon. Gentleman's interventions usually contain.
If individual schools, or clusters of schools, are to take on groups of students, what is to be the critical mass? Will it be 10, 12 or 15 students? If the scheme is to be cost-effective, there must be a critical mass. I think that it must be between 10 and 15. Even in a large comprehensive with as many as 80 or 100 staff, the addition of 15 students would impose a considerable burden; most large schools would not take on more than three or four at any one time, because of the disruption involved. I need not remind the Minister that one of the reasons why Harrow school left the partnership scheme was the disruption that it anticipated.
If a large comprehensive will not be able to cope, how will a large primary school with perhaps 20 teachers cope? How will a small primary with six or seven teachers deal with perhaps a similar number of students at the same time? As with so many of the Government's Bills and policies, no consideration has been given to the way in which the proposals will work in the classroom.
I know what many parents will feel about the Bill. They want their children to be taught by well motivated, highly skilled teachers; they want those teachers to spend their time with the children in the classroom. What they do not want is for the school to be full of students so that teachers spend their time helping those students.
The most serious contradiction in the Bill is the fact that Tory Members have constantly criticised teacher training and trendy ideas during the 1960s and those teachers who, supposedly, conspired to lower standards, yet the Bill gives the job of training new teachers to the alleged villains of the piece.
The Bill is seriously flawed. It has little support in schools and no support among parents. The only glimmer of light in the gloom is that few schools will take it on because it is totally unworkable.

Mr. Don Foster: The hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) referred to the two Ministers on the Front Bench as Tweedledee and Tweedledum. I have a grudging affection for them—and for the Secretary of State, who may not be with us for much longer—but I thought that they looked more like the Flower Pot Men as

they watched the Secretary of State wandering in and out of the Chamber. "Bill and Ben, the Flower Pot Men. Flubberdub. Where did the Little Weed go?"
The Bill is totally unnecessary and unwelcome. Nevertheless, our debate has brought some welcome developments. Members on both sides of the House have welcomed part II of the Bill, on which the Government have shown some willingness to listen to concerns expressed by people both inside and outside the House, despite the blandishments of the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick).
It was also interesting to hear the Secretary of State apparently welcome the idea of an outside, non-partisan body that would look into some education issues. I am sure that he will join me in welcoming the fact that the Education Commission has secured some additional funding to continue the excellent work that it was doing.
I also welcome the Government's admission that the parents charter was not all that it was cracked up to be. I particularly welcome the Minister's remark that one could not rely on a document like that.
The vast majority of the damage will be done by part I, which fails to recognise the real problems in the education service. The Government would have done far better to deal with those problems than the issues which they have dealt with in part I. Their energy would have been put to better use in looking at the underfunding of the education service and giving even more impetus to increasing significantly the level of nursery education available to three and four-year-olds. They should have dealt with the desperate need to establish a general teaching council to raise the professional status of teachers rather than to reduce it, as part I does.
Part I is also dangerous. For example, it introduces into our education service yet another unelected, remote, undemocratic quango. More than 55 per cent. of all central Government expenditure on education is now through quangos. People are concerned about the denial of the democratic principle by those quangos, not least when they see that their membership is solely in the hands of the Secretary of State, who will appoint between eight and 12 faceless men and women who will meet in secret and not be answerable to Parliament. They could certainly never claim to represent an independent or credible organisation.
The Secretary of State assured us that the Bill would not give him any additional powers. He continually tells us that he has moved power from the hub of the wheel to the rim of the wheel, yet, as recently as today, he demonstrated effectively the way in which the Bill gives him significantly increased power.
The Secretary of State was pleased to be able to announce as recently as today a new initiative in respect of OFSTED, whereby he would use his powers under clause 7 of the Bill to dictate that OFSTED should be allowed to visit organisations and institutions and that, if they did not let it in, no funds would be available. The clause provides:
The Secretary of State may make grants to the funding agencies of such amounts and subject to such terms and conditions as he may determine.
That two-line part of the clause shows the enormous power that the Secretary of State will gain from the Bill.
The Secretary of State also said, during his brief contribution, that he was perhaps sorry that he had not started reforms of teacher education sooner, but that one has to start somewhere. That belies all the changes that


have taken place in initial teacher education under the current Secretary of State and his predecessors in recent years, some of which I welcomed.
The Secretary of State rightly moved the initial teacher training so that more time has been spent in the classroom. Moves by the Secretary of State and the Conservative Government have ensured the establishment of worthwhile partnerships between schools and institutions of higher education. Those are welcome, but the proposals in the Bill, especially the drive towards school-centred initial teacher training, are, I believe, a move too far. That move will, in due course, remove opportunities for choice and diversity as more and more institutions drop out of providing initial teacher education.
The Secretary of State and his colleagues on the Government Bench have been able to provide no evidence of support for those proposals. They have been able to provide no evidence that the proposals will improve the quality of teacher training, and there has been no realisation by the Secretary of State or his colleagues of the distinction between training someone to join the profession of teaching and technician education.
The Bill—especially part I—will do a great disservice to the country's education service, and it will continue to lower the morale of the people working in the service. I very much hope that it will not be given a Third Reading.

Mr. Gunnell: In the past two or three weeks, my constituents have reminded me of the only aspect of education about which there has been agreement across the House as far as the Bill is concerned—we are anxious about the quality of education.
Constituents have come to me, expressing a great deal of anxiety about the fact that their children had not been able to obtain, or they thought that their children would not be able to obtain, places in schools in Morley, which is half of my constituency, because so many people were coming in from outside the constituency—and indeed from outside Leeds—under the Greenwich judgments. Indeed, the authority originally allocated their children to schools that they felt were of lesser quality.
That brought it home to me that the three high schools in Morley are all schools where the quality of the education is good, and the quality is good because the head teachers and staff are good, as are the relationships that exist in the schools. Those are all schools that I have been in at the time that I was involved in teacher training, and they are all schools that have a great deal to commend them. It was not surprising, therefore, that my constituents felt aggrieved that their children were placed in schools that they considered to be of lesser quality.
It has been the view of the Government that they are bringing forward a Bill that improves the quality of education because it improves the quality of teaching. I find that they have not made their case.
The Bill has no merit from beginning to end. It is notable that my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) has already gone on record as saying that she would get rid of the Teacher Training Agency if she were Secretary of State. That is a commitment that I very much hope and expect she will fulfil. It is the only fit thing to do.
The Bill is based on myths. We know what they are because those of us who served on the Committee were given the briefings that were given to Conservative Members. Each of those briefings starts with one of the myths.
The briefing for part I of the Bill talks of political correctness. It states that higher education institutions, particularly teacher training institutions, are more concerned with political correctness than education. We heard that in Committee, we heard it from the hon. Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) and, of course, we heard it from the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick), who is very concerned about political correctness.
All the examples given—most of them from Lancaster—were to be found in the briefing given to Conservative Members. It was not quite respectable enough to have come from central office, but it came with some guarantee from the Ministers. It consisted of various myths about the worst things that were thought to happen in teacher training institutions.
With part II of the Bill came another book of myths of the dreadful things done by student unions. We heard that again today from the hon. Members for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) and for Colne Valley. Once the hon. Member for Colne Valley sees the word "union" on a piece of paper, it affects him in a certain way. I wonder whether, if I look at the Huddersfield District Chronicle, I shall find that the hon. Gentleman has been attacking the Mothers Union or the Band of Hope Union. As soon as he sees anything about unions he responds in a particular way.
The fact that part II of the Bill exists is a tribute to the hon. Member for Colne Valley. The Lords made it clear that part II, as originally envisaged by the Government, was nonsense. Part II contains the longest clause in the Bill—a clause which does nothing and which the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals rightly said was otiose and unworkable. Otiose means idle—the clause is idle, as is that part of the Bill, because it does nothing and does not contain legislation of any value. All it does is make it possible for people who are not student union members to ensure that they can get their drinks at the union bar—that was always going to be the case. Part II is a complete waste of time. It is not particularly dangerous and only becomes so if many people opt out of unions and the unions find it hard to fulfil their welfare functions.
Part I is based on the myth that what happens in higher education is politically correct. Part I is dangerous. We must consider the likely consequences if the Teacher Training Agency remains in existence for very long. It will reduce the quality of teaching. Because of my own background I am particularly concerned about the quality of science teaching. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) is concerned about the quality of chemistry students. I accept that sometimes chemists may have greater difficulty in coming to terms with the subject in which my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth specialises than he would in coming to terms with theirs.
We must be concerned about the quality of science teachers because we must be concerned about the number of science graduates—we know that there will be a shortage.
There are particular difficulties in training science graduates for work in secondary schools because there is disharmony between the concept of a university degree in science and what we now ask of science teachers in


secondary schools. The best students still very much aim for a single-subject honours degree. Fortunately, there are now some degrees that encompass two or even three subjects, but they are relatively few.
When the teacher with an honours degree in physics or chemistry goes to a secondary school, he will be expected to teach not just physics or chemistry but across the whole range of sciences. Quite rightly, we have moved towards integrated science to give students an understanding of the fundamental principles of science as a whole. That means that that teacher must have academic retraining or he will spend a great deal of time teaching a subject in which his academic background is weak.
The Secretary of State will know that many people recruited in times of teacher shortage do not have the academic background to teach science in secondary schools. That problem will be compounded by a system that takes the initial training of teachers away from higher education. University departments of education have a range of science expertise that can help individual students. They also have a range of equipment that simply is not available in individual schools.
I have visited many schools that are hesitant about laboratory work because of the cost of materials. Therefore, when training teachers they cannot encourage them to experiment. Everyone knows that, when conducting an experiment for the first time, we are likely not to have it right so it does not work. Any one in science teaching has had that experience. We have to learn to deal with that, but it is better to do so within a university setting than in a school in front of a class of 30 to 40 pupils. I believe that not just in science, but more widely, there will be a reduction in quality as a result of removing teacher training from higher education institutions.
A second factor is that, over time, many schools—my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) cited Harrow—will drop out of initial teacher training. Ilkley grammar school has said that it can no longer take teacher training students because there is a fundamental conflict between its job of educating children and the job it is being increasingly asked to do of training teachers, even in partnership with higher education institutions.
That conflict means that schools that want to concentrate on pupils and on what happens in the classroom are increasingly reducing the amount of contact between student teachers and pupils. They feel that that is important if they are to maintain their positions in the league and their examination results. There will be a reduction in the number of schools involved in teacher training.
The future under the Bill and the Teacher Training Agency will be one of a diminishing number of higher education institutions and schools involved in teacher training. I agree with the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) that some of the measures that the Government have taken in previous years have led to more contact with schools and have been beneficial to the system, but the Bill's provisions in respect of the Teacher Training Agency will weaken teacher training.
The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) said earlier that he was concerned about intellectual rigour in education. It is a great pity that the Secretary of State for Education and his Ministers are not concerned about

intellectual rigour in teacher training; they are, in fact, diminishing it. They believe that education theory can be taught by people who have retired from the—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business),
That, at this day's sitting, the Education Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, through opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Wood.]

Question agreed to.

Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Mr. Gunnell: I was coming to the end of my speech. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I thought that that might be popular.
As the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) said, concern about intellectual rigour in education seemed to make the hon. Member for Buckingham melancholic. He might well be melancholic about the lack of intellectual rigour in the proposals, which are made on the basis of that what happens at the chalk face and what happens in the ivory cocoon are completely separate. We believe in a teacher training system where the practical experience in schools is fully consonant with a theoretical base in which there is an understanding of education.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I call Mr. Colin Pickthall. [Interruption.]

Mr. Pickthall: Did Conservative Members think that they could get away that lightly?
The core of the impulse behind the Bill is the assumed inefficiency and political undesirability of teacher education in the higher education sector. The Government's target has shifted in the past few years. Formerly, they said that teachers were responsible for all the ills of society, for not providing sufficiently trained pupils to fulfil the needs of business and commerce or young people sufficiently trained to be quiet citizens. The changes made in successive Education Acts were accompanied by a barrage of scorn that Conservative Members directed at teachers. Unfortunately for the Government, the experience of the population vis-a-vis their schools did not coincide with that, and the Secretary of State for Education succeeded in uniting almost all sections of education in resisting the Government's general attitude towards teachers.
In the past year or two, therefore, the Government have shifted their target—it is now teacher educators in universities and colleges. Conservative Back Benchers, if not co-Ministers, as they refer to themselves, have poured contempt on those people who are involved in teacher education. That has been obvious tonight. The hon. Members for Ealing, South (Mr. Greenway) and for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins) make blanket condemnations of teacher education in colleges and universities. Throughout Committee, their argument was based on a painfully compiled booklet that contains a mixture of anecdotes, apocryphal details, exaggerations and generalisations about the dealings of teacher education departments and faculties. It was somewhat equivalent to the urban myth that we have read about in the newspapers.
The Secretary of State—we quoted this many times—said clearly in public that the school-centred initial teacher training schemes are all about bypassing higher education,


although, if I may get in a plug, the college where I used to teach in my constituency is the only one in the country that was judged "excellent" for its PGCE courses last year.
Conservative Members still talk about teacher training colleges—they referred to them again today—but they have not existed for a decade and a half. A huge change has taken place in colleges and universities and—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not know what hon. Members on both sides of the House are talking about, but I do know that I cannot hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying. I hope that the House will settle down a little.

Mr. Pickthall: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
A huge change has taken place, and is still taking place, in partnerships between colleges and schools. Most people, including hon. Members on both sides of the House, agree that partnerships are the right way forward, and that despite their many problems they are producing, and will produce, the goods. That was, and is, the change.
The Minister has accused us of being "conservatives" in the matter, but we are not; we are living through and, I hope, helping with a crucial change. But leapfrogging over that change comes another change—the school-centred initial teacher training scheme. Throughout Committee stage and today, the Opposition have tried to explore what the education experience of a trainee teacher should be.
Certainly that experience should be practical and school-based to a large extent, but it should also be theoretical. Throughout our proceedings on the Bill, we have heard Conservative Members throwing out lampoons about theory in education. Students are required to know about the foundations of knowledge and skills, and how they are acquired. Of course, that involves some sociology and psychology; some legal knowledge—that can be a minefield—and knowledge of the structures of education systems and of comparative studies, as well as sex education, which the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) discussed, special educational needs and a host of other things.
Training also involves constant discussion and collaboration with other students, which the Bill seeks at least to water down. It also involves subject knowledge, which higher education can provide and schools cannot, to the same level. Teacher education involves the use of libraries and technologies, which universities and colleges can provide. Most of all, it involves the neutral role of a tutor, who is not involved in the particular politics and circumstances of the school.
Tonight we have again tried to explore the reality of the impact of those changes on the schools that will be directly affected. In all cases, Ministers' replies to us have largely avoided the central issues that we have tried to raise. We have tried to build in safeguards with our amendments, and to alert parents to the tremendous changes that SCITT schools will undergo. Again, all that has fallen on stony ground. Any impartial observer would have thought that the vast number of amendments proposed in Committee by the Labour party and by the Liberal Democratic party spokesman, the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) were constructive, neutral and certainly free of ideology. Yet Ministers brushed them all aside.
Ministers have tried to assure us throughout the Bill's passage that higher education, including that part of higher education concerned with teacher education, is in no danger from the Bill. But they have only to listen to their own Back-Bench colleagues, especially the hon. Member for Ealing, North, to realise what their real intentions are.
In conclusion—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I shall go on for another 10 minutes in that case. In conclusion, I should like to make a small bet with the Minister; perhaps he will respond to it when he sums up. The chairman of the Teacher Training Agency has been announced, and I should like to make a small wager that the name of Sheila Lawlor will figure, at least on the short list, for the post of its chief executive. I believe that we all have a fairly clear idea of her views on higher education, teacher education and even nursery schools.
Finally, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gunnell) that the Bill is intellectually disreputable and will do great damage to teacher education and to the future of our schools.

Mr. Bryan Davies: It is not often that one has the pleasure of seeing the House fill with hon. Members in eager anticipation of one's contribution, so I feel it incumbent on me to sum up the major issues arising from the Bill in a conspicuous effort to persuade Conservative Members, even at this late stage, to realise that it would be folly to give a Third Reading to such a bedraggled measure.
For those hon. Members who have been so busy elsewhere that they have not been able fully to follow the detailed development of the measure, it may help to refresh their memories if I remind them that the Bill started life as a most aggressive measure from the Secretary of State, with which he meant to achieve two aims. First, he was to achieve a new dawn for teacher education and the training of teachers in this country and, secondly, he would demolish the student unions, especially the National Union of Students—a source of such grievance to certain members of the Conservative party, but not to those who take an interest in educational matters.
The Bill was introduced in the other place and it was dismantled—not by the Labour Opposition, although our case was presented by our colleagues with their usual forcefulness and accuracy, but, in fact, by Conservative Members; right-wing Conservative Members, who knew something about education and thought that the Bill was nonsense. They thought that it was such nonsense that the Minister in the other place had the good sense to take the Bill away for several months and cogitate on its problems in some hope that, when it eventually returned, it would have a safe passage through the House.
The reason why the Bill will continue to have difficulty—I hope that it will have difficulty this evening, too—is quite clear. First, it is not the case that anybody sets out to defend higher education as such. We all seek to defend quality performance by higher education, but, we are not prepared to tolerate—nor are those who thought about the issue in the other place—a significant erosion of teacher training on the basis of an experiment which is only part-way through and the results of which are unproven.
It seems reasonable, in education at least, that we should have some regard for scientific methodology and some respect for the fact that, if the Government are carrying out


an experiment in the consortia of schools which conduct teacher education, that experiment should run its course and a true evaluation should be made before legislation is passed. It is far from that. I appeal to reasonable Conservative Members to recognise that they are being asked to vote on giving the Bill a Third Reading when we have no evidence of the success of the experiment, except hearsay.
We know that the experiment will certainly lead to a considerable erosion of the quality of teacher education for the following reasons. The development of teacher education in schools will be fraught with difficulties. Conservative Members must know that schools are under strain. All Conservative Members with experience of governing bodies and of representations from parents will recognise that the convulsions which schools have undergone in recent years has put them under great pressure. If results are to be published and the Government's much-vaunted league tables are to be the measure of school performance, schools, rightly, will concentrate on those measures of success identified by the Government.
I ask Conservative Members whether they would, as members of a governing body, therefore take lightly an assumption that the school should devote significant resources to teacher education, to untrained students being before the classes in significant numbers to promote their education, but not, of course, being able to provide the same, experienced teaching to the students in their charge? Would they be certain that the resources were forthcoming in that scenario, when schools recognise that the pressure on resources at the present time is intense?
The experiment will erode teacher education, because, as the Government know, university departments of education—and especially university governing bodies and senates—will be watching the position with great concern. Those governing bodies now see that the work of university departments could be reduced because the governing bodies no longer control the resource flow to the departments, since it comes under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of State's quango—yet another of the unelected organisations set up by the Secretary of State to operate in education. Is it any wonder that there are great anxieties about the supply of teachers for the future, great worries about the strains and stresses on our schools and great concern about the quality of performance of the new scheme that the Government are thrusting upon us?
The second part of the Bill is now so truncated as to be scarcely worth Conservative Members bothering to participate in debates upon it. We had the rather undignified spectacle this evening of two or three Conservative Back-Bench Members, in place of the 50 or 60 hard ideologues of their party, out to wreck the National Union of Students, seeking to ensure that, if a student contracted out of his £1.20 a year payment to the union, he should receive a 40p rebate on the ground that he had not had full value for money. That was the absurdity to which we were reduced.
In effect, the Bill tells students—an increasingly large range of students with a significant number of votes, and an increasing number of part-time and mature students—and their representative institutions that the Government want to create the nanny state. It will place universities in a position in which they will have to supervise every move, every piece of expenditure and every action made and taken by students unions. We are talking of students who

are supposed to be being educated for a democracy. As I have said, many of them are fully participating members of that democracy. I warn the Government that when students get the chance next time to participate fully in the democratic process, the Conservative party will get short shrift on the basis of the Bill.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 284, Noes 249.

Division No. 289]
[10.16 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Dickens, Geoffrey


Aitken, Jonathan
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Alexander, Richard
Dover, Den


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Duncan, Alan


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Amess, David
Durant, Sir Anthony


Arbuthnot, James
Dykes, Hugh


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Eggar, Tim


Atkins, Robert
Elletson, Harold


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Evennett, David


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Faber, David


Bates, Michael
Fabricant, Michael


Batiste, Spencer
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Bellingham, Henry
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Bendall, Vivian
Fishburn, Dudley


Beresford, Sir Paul
Forman, Nigel


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Booth, Hartley
Forth, Eric


Boswell, Tim
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Bowis, John
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
French, Douglas


Brandreth, Gyles
Fry, Sir Peter


Brazier, Julian
Gale, Roger


Bright, Graham
Gallie, Phil


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Gardiner, Sir George


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Garnier, Edward


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Gill, Christopher


Budgen, Nicholas
Gillan, Cheryl


Burns, Simon
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Burt, Alistair
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Butcher, John
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Butler, Peter
Gorst, Sir John


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Carrington, Matthew
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Carttiss, Michael
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Cash, William
Grylls, Sir Michael


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hague, William


Chapman, Sydney
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Churchill, Mr
Hampson, Dr Keith


Clappison, James
Hannam, Sir John


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hargreaves, Andrew


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Harris, David


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Haselhurst, Alan


Coe, Sebastian
Hawkins, Nick


Colvin, Michael
Hawksley, Warren


Congdon, David
Hayes, Jerry


Conway, Derek
Heald, Oliver


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hendry, Charles


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.


Couchman, James
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Cran, James
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Horam, John


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Day, Stephen
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Devlin, Tim
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)






Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Hunter, Andrew
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Jack, Michael
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Jenkin, Bernard
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Jessel, Toby
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Sackville, Tom


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Key, Robert
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Kilfedder, Sir James
Shaw, David (Dover)


King, Rt Hon Tom
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Kirkhope, Timothy
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Shersby, Michael


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Sims, Roger


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Soames, Nicholas


Legg, Barry
Speed, Sir Keith


Leigh, Edward
Spencer, Sir Derek


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lidington, David
Spink, Dr Robert


Lightbown, David
Spring, Richard


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Lord, Michael
Steen, Anthony


Luff, Peter
Stephen, Michael


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Stern, Michael


Maclean, David
Stewart, Allan


McLoughlin, Patrick
Streeter, Gary


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Sumberg, David


Madel, Sir David
Sweeney, Walter


Malone, Gerald
Sykes, John


Mans, Keith
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Marland, Paul
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Marlow, Tony
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mates, Michael
Thomason, Roy


Merchant, Piers
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Mills, Iain
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Thurnham, Peter


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Moate, Sir Roger
Tracey, Richard


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Tredinnick, David


Moss, Malcolm
Trend, Michael


Nelson, Anthony
Trimble, David


Neubert, Sir Michael
Trotter, Neville


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Twinn, Dr Ian


Nicholls, Patrick
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Viggers, Peter


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Norris, Steve
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Ward, John


Oppenheim, Phillip
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Ottaway, Richard
Waterson, Nigel


Page, Richard
Watts, John


Paice, James
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Patnick, Irvine
Whitney, Ray


Patten, Rt Hon John
Whittingdale, John


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Widdecombe, Ann


Pawsey, James
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Wilkinson, John


Pickles, Eric
Willetts, David


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Wilshire, David


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Powell, William (Corby)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Rathbone, Tim
Wolfson, Mark


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Wood, Timothy


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Richards, Rod



Riddick, Graham
Tellers for the Ayes:


Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm
Mr. Andrew Mackay and


Robathan, Andrew
Mr. Bowen Wells


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn



NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene
Allen, Graham


Ainger, Nick
Alton, David


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)





Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Galloway, George


Armstrong, Hilary
Gapes, Mike


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Gerrard, Neil


Ashton, Joe
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Barnes, Harry
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Barron, Kevin
Godsiff, Roger


Battle, John
Golding, Mrs Llin


Bayley, Hugh
Gordon, Mildred


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Graham, Thomas


Bell, Stuart
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Bennett, Andrew F.
Grocott, Bruce


Benton, Joe
Gunnell, John


Bermingham, Gerald
Hain, Peter


Berry, Roger
Hall, Mike


Betts, Clive
Hanson, David


Blunkett, David
Harman, Ms Harriet


Boateng, Paul
Harvey, Nick


Boyes, Roland
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Bradley, Keith
Henderson, Doug


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Heppell, John


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Hinchliffe, David


Burden, Richard
Hodge, Margaret


Byers, Stephen
Hoey, Kate


Caborn, Richard
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Callaghan, Jim
Home Robertson, John


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Hood, Jimmy


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Hoon, Geoffrey


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Canavan, Dennis
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Cann, Jamie
Hoyle, Doug


Chidgey, David
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Church, Judith
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Clapham, Michael
Hutton, John


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Jamieson, David


Clelland, David
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Coffey, Ann
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Cohen, Harry
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Connarty, Michael
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Jowell, Tessa


Corbett, Robin
Keen, Alan


Corbyn, Jeremy
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Corston, Ms Jean
Khabra, Piara S.


Cummings, John
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Lewis, Terry


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Litherland, Robert


Dalyell, Tam
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Darling, Alistair
Llwyd, Elfyn


Davidson, Ian
Loyden, Eddie


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Lynne, Ms Liz


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
McAllion, John


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
McAvoy, Thomas


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
McCartney, Ian


Denham, John
Macdonald, Calum


Dewar, Donald
McFall, John


Dixon, Don
McKelvey, William


Dobson, Frank
Mackinlay, Andrew


Donohoe, Brian H.
McLeish, Henry


Dowd, Jim
McMaster, Gordon


Dunnachie, Jimmy
MacShane, Denis


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
McWilliam, John


Eagle, Ms Angela
Madden, Max


Eastham, Ken
Maddock, Mrs Diana


Enright, Derek
Mahon, Alice


Etherington, Bill
Mans, Keith


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Marek, Dr John


Fatchett, Derek
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Fisher, Mark
Martlew, Eric


Flynn, Paul
Meacher, Michael


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Meale, Alan


Foster, Don (Bath)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Foulkes, George
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Fraser, John
Milburn, Alan


Fyfe, Maria
Miller, Andrew






Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Sedgemore, Brian


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Sheerman, Barry


Morgan, Rhodri
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Morley, Elliot
Short, Clare


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Simpson, Alan


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Skinner, Dennis


Mowlam, Marjorie
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Mudie, George
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Mullin, Chris
Snape, Peter


Murphy, Paul
Soley, Clive


O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)
Spearing, Nigel


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


O'Hara, Edward
Steinberg, Gerry


Olner, William
Stevenson, George


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Parry, Robert
Straw, Jack


Patchett, Terry
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Pendry, Tom
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Pickthall, Colin
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Pike, Peter L.
Timms, Stephen


Pope, Greg
Tipping, Paddy


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Turner, Dennis


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)
Vaz, Keith


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Prescott, John
Walley, Joan


Primarolo, Dawn
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Purchase, Ken
Wareing, Robert N


Quin, Ms Joyce
Watson, Mike


Radice, Giles
Wicks, Malcolm


Randall, Stuart
Wigley, Dafydd


Raynsford, Nick
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Redmond, Martin
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Reid, Dr John
Wilson, Brian


Rendel, David
Winnick, David


Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Worthington, Tony


Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)
Wray, Jimmy


Roche, Mrs. Barbara
Wright, Dr Tony


Rogers, Allan
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Rooker, Jeff



Rooney, Terry
Tellers for the Noes:


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Mr. John Spellar and


Rowlands, Ted
Mr. Eric Illsley.


Ruddock, Joan

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

Orders of the Day — Contracts

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. John M. Taylor): I beg to move,
That the draft Contracts (Applicable Law) Act 1990 (Amendment) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 24th May, be approved.
The purpose of the order is to make some minor modifications to the Contracts (Applicable Law) Act 1990 in order to reflect the accession of Spain and Portugal to the 1980 Rome convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations.
It may be helpful at the outset to say a few words by way of background about the 1980 Rome convention. It is a convention made between member states of the European Community, the purpose of which is to harmonise their private international law rules on contract: It lays down rules to determine which law is to apply to a contract that has connections with more than one country. It does not affect the substantive law of contract, but merely enables courts to decide which country's law governs a contract. That harmonisation is designed to make it easier for people to do business in the Community, as the rules on applicable law will no longer vary according to which member state's courts hear litigation in the field of contract law.
The convention was opened for signature in 1980. This country signed it in 1981 and ratified it in January 1991, having given effect to it in United Kingdom law by the Contracts (Applicable Law) Act 1990. The reason for the delay was the time taken to negotiate two protocols to the convention, which provide for the European Court of Justice to have jurisdiction in certain cases under the convention and which were signed in 1988. This country's ratification was the last needed to bring the convention into force on 1 April 1991. All nine member states at the date of the opening for signature of the convention have now ratified it.
Although the Rome convention is not strictly a piece of Community legislation, it is related to article 220 of the treaty of Rome—the treaty which established the European Economic Community. The purpose of that article is to ensure that member states enter into negotiations to secure the simplification and facilitation of recognition and enforcement of judgments in the Community and new member states undertake to accede to the conventions made thereunder, in particular the 1968 Brussels convention on jurisdiction, and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters. The Rome convention concerns a related area of private international law. Greece acceded to it by the Luxembourg convention of 1984. The United Kingdom ratified that latter convention, and it too is now in force.
The convention on the accession of Spain and Portugal was signed in Funchal on 18 May 1992—as a matter of fact, by me. It resembled that for Greece closely in text and is largely formal. It is to be found in the schedule to the draft order, article 9 of which will insert it as a new schedule to the Contracts (Applicable Law) Act 1990.
The changes to the 1990 Act contained in this draft order are minor and uncontroversial, and are necessary in order for this country to ratify the convention whereby Spain and Portugal have acceded to the 1980 Rome


convention. As such, the order facilitates a useful development in an important area of private international law and I commend it to the House.

Mr. Paul Boateng: However minor and uncontroversial the order may or may not be, the manner in which it was moved by the Minister was indicative of a wider problem. Mr. Deputy Speaker, when you called the order for debate, the Minister was strangely absent from his place, showing his marked reluctance to come to the House to be accountable for the actions of the Lord Chancellor's Department and, for once, to be accountable for his own actions: we learned that he signed the relevant document himself.
Well, that is good news. For once, he can come to the House and be accountable for something that he has done, rather than something that the Lord Chancellor has done—or rather something that he has not done in fulfilling his duties. [Interruption.] I see that some hon. Members are anxious that we should get on. By the look of them, I think that this matter must have some vaguely European purpose because representatives of the two sides of the Conservative party are present in the Chamber. It is enough to make one wish to stay for the next business, rather than beating a hasty retreat.

Mr. Winston Churchill: The hon. Gentleman is trying to stir up trouble again.

Mr. Boateng: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman has not realised that it is part of the Opposition's job to stir up trouble. We do not have much difficulty with that lot on the Conservative Benches. Some of the usual suspects are here tonight. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where are the they?"] We do not have any usual suspects on the Opposition Benches—we are all one great big happy family.
I shall focus on the measure before the House because that is what you would wish me to do, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Article 1 of the Rome convention, to which the Minister referred, was given effect by the Contracts (Applicable Law) Act 1990, which gave rise to the amending order that was laid before the House. The article contains a number of exclusion areas, if I may use that phrase—areas that are excluded from the rules of the convention. We are anxious to ascertain tonight the Government's intentions in relation to those areas.
The areas excluded from the rules of the convention are: contractual obligations relating to wills and succession; rights in property arising out of a matrimonial relationship, and rights and duties arising out of a family relationship; obligations arising under bills of exchange, cheques and other negotiable instruments, to the extent that the obligations arise out of the instrument's negotiable character; questions governed by the law of companies and other bodies corporate or unincorporate; the constitutions of trusts and the relationship between settlors, trustees and beneficiaries; and, importantly, contracts of insurance that cover risks in the European Community. All those are excluded under article 1. We want to know the Government's attitude towards them.
Also, it is important that we know from the Minister what steps he and the Lord Chancellor's Department are

taking to ensure that the Rome convention and its application, in the way he described tonight, enhance legal certainty in that area rather than create fresh uncertainty.
The purpose and intent of the convention, the 1990 Act and the amendment order are that there should be a degree of certainty within the European Economic Community—certainty which, by its existence, would facilitate the free movement and exchange of goods and services and in that way underpin the aims and purposes of the European Economic Community. We want to know what the Lord Chancellor's Department is doing to monitor that. We also want to hear from the Minister whether he is satisfied with its current application. The purpose of the Act and the order is that the parties to a contract should be free to choose which country's law shall govern it. That is an important principle, and it is one which has considerable implications for our courts.
The Royal Courts of Justice and the various divisions are groaning under a weight of work and litigation. Their resources and staff are often stretched to breaking point. Some steps have been taken—under pressure, it must be said, from this side of the House—to deal with the shortage of High Court judges, although there remains a problem with the recruitment of those judges. But there is a problem in terms of the framework and infrastructure of the justice system within the jurisdiction.
It is a popular jurisdiction, and one which many companies and bodies corporate and unincorporated seek to utilise for the purposes of litigation. We are anxious to ensure that the Government take steps to make sure that the cost of that litigation in utilising the legal infrastructure of the jurisdiction is not an undue burden. It must not constitute an unfair burden on the ordinary citizens of this country who choose to have recourse to our courts and who do not have the option for which the order provides. Many people who seek to institute litigation must choose whether or not they institute it here or in some other area of jurisdiction.
Spain and Portugal have been added to those countries which have acceded to the convention. Their accession has implications for our jurisdiction, and I hope that the Minister will be able to assist in that area. What steps is he taking to ensure that that does not constitute an unfair burden on the infrastructure of the courts?
We have in recent weeks written to the Minister on a number of occasions, and we have placed questions on the Order Paper which relate specifically to accommodation and infrastructure matters as far as the jurisdiction is concerned. On 26 May this year, we asked about the report which is being undertaken by those who are undertaking the fundamental review of the Department's spending. We asked that the report be published, and that any policy changes arising from that report be made known. It is obviously important to the consumer of legal services that we should know the implications of the fundamental review of the Department's spending.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. It is not appropriate to go into that matter in the sort of depth which the hon. Gentleman is seeking to do this evening.

Mr. John M. Taylor: Not at all.

Mr. Boateng: I am not anxious—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I heard a sedentary remark which was not appropriate.

Mr. John M. Taylor: I withdraw.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am most grateful.

Mr. Boateng: I would not for one moment ask the Minister to launch into an explanation now of his Department's fundamental review. That, as you have said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would be improper. However, I do ask him to reconsider the decision not to publish the report.
The order clearly has implications for the review. If Spain and Portugal accede to the convention and litigants who might formerly have chosen either of those countries as the appropriate jurisdiction now use this one, we are entitled to know the spending implications and the implications for multi-party actions. Contracts and the performance of contracts are giving rise to increasing implications for a wide range of persons. They may not all be parties to the litigation, but they are certainly affected and influenced by the contracts.
On 21 June, we asked the Minister whether, in the light of the review that had been undertaken, he would publish his Department's findings on the rules governing multi-party actions. He refused to do that too, apparently because it was tied up with the fundamental review of legal spending with which we shall not be dealing tonight. We also asked—this, too, is highly relevant to the current position in the Royal Courts of Justice—[HON. MEMBERS: "The Lone Ranger!"] If I am the Lone Ranger, the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) certainly is not Tonto; we can be sure of that.
We are concerned about the implications for the Royal Courts of Justice, and the changes in the possible venue for litigation. Why is the Minister again not prepared to publish an apparently innocent review of court accommodation that his Department is undertaking? Why should we not all know about court accommodation? I see that the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) is tickled pink by that suggestion—or, rather, tickled a still darker shade of blue.
I hope that the Minister will give us some answers. If we are given an assurance that in due course we shall receive still more detailed answers, perhaps the order will be approved; if not, we shall have to consider our position very carefully.

Mr. John M. Taylor: If the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) considers his position with the current number of supporters behind him, I do not think that he will make much headway.
It was extremely precocious and completely out of order for me to attempt to assist you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I am bound to say that the hon. Gentleman surpassed himself in straying from the subject. The internal review of the Lord Chancellor's Department, to which he referred several times, has absolutely nothing to do with the international protocols of private international law. I will at least oblige him in regard to resource implications. It must be plain to any man or woman of good will that, if Spain and Portugal accede, our citizens may be inconvenienced in such litigation as they may unfortunately find themselves involved in concerning those jurisdictions.
The hon. Gentleman's comments on infrastructure seemed to stray from the motion, and I shall not follow him. However, it was relevant to question the convention's adherence to the principles, which he and I understand, of freedom of contract. I hope that he will be reassured that the convention's two basic principles accord with previous United Kingdom law, and its implementation has therefore led to few changes in our law.
First, the parties to a contract may choose which country's law is to apply to it. We regard that enshrining of freedom of choice as being central to the convention. Secondly, in the absence of such a choice, the contract is to be governed by the law of the country with which it is most closely connected; and the convention lays down various rebuttable presumptions for determining that connection. That is a very English-law approach to the problem.
The hon. Gentleman rightly referred to exclusions. Matters excluded from the scope of the convention include contracts more closely related to family law, trusts, wills and succession, certain insurance contracts and questions governed by company law. My litany will be the same as the hon. Gentleman's, albeit not in exactly in the same order. He asked what was the Government's position, and I shall tell him. Those exclusions were negotiated and agreed between the member states in 1980. The Government have no plans at present to reopen the question of those exclusions. Any alterations would, of course, have to be negotiated between all parties to the convention.
May I conclude by saying something about Gibraltar which may interest the House? The convention mentions European territories outside the United Kingdom
for the international relations of which the United Kingdom is responsible".
Clearly, that means Gibraltar. I should like the House to know that shortly the Government intend to extend the Rome convention to Gibraltar under article 27 of the convention. We see no reason to delay extension until after the deletion of that article by the Contracts (Applicable Law) Act 1990 (Amendment) Order 1994. No legislation is needed in this country to effect such an extension because Gibraltar has already enacted the necessary legislation in its own legislature.
I hope that the House will welcome that. I also hope that it will welcome the accession of Spain and Portugal.

Mr. Boateng: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Oh, how characteristically churlish.
Not surprisingly, we are not satisfied by the Minister's response. He has failed to answer questions about the fundamental review. We shall continue to push those questions and pursue and harry the Minister until he answers them. There will be many more interesting debates such as we have had under your chairmanship tonight, Mr. Deputy Speaker, until such time as those questions are answered.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Contracts (Applicable Law) Act 1990 (Amendment) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 24th May, be approved.

Orders of the Day — European Union (Accessions) Bill

Motion made,
That, in respect of the European Union (Accessions) Bill, notices of Amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

Hon. Members: Object.

Orders of the Day — Overseas Pensioners

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

Mr. Winston Churchill: The redress of grievance has been a time-honoured role of the House of Commons over the centuries, and remains as important today as it did in the days of monarchical despotism. It is for that reason that I wish to draw the House's attention to a serious injustice—indeed, the most serious injustice that I have come across in the 24 years I have been privileged to serve in this House.
It concerns the plight of Britain's expatriate pensioners, living in those countries where their pension was frozen at the date on which they left the United Kingdom, or when they first became eligible for a pension.
Ninety-five per cent. of Britain's retirement pensioners remain in this country for their retirement. Approximately 2 per cent. live in the European Union, the United States or that tiny handful of countries where they enjoy the uprating of pensions. The ambit of this Adjournment debate is therefore to focus on that 3 per cent. of British state pensioners who have contributed throughout their working lives to their retirement pension, but who are denied that retirement pension at present.
Of 676,000 British pensioners drawing their retirement pension abroad, more than half—about 381,000—have their pensions frozen. Although they have exported the costs of their health care and their old age, to the great relief of the British taxpayer, instead of receiving a bonus for so doing, they are, on the contrary, penalised—some very cruelly indeed.
There is no rhyme or logic to that discrimination. War pensions and war widows' pensions are payable anywhere in the world at the full current rate. State retirement pensions, on the other hand, to which individuals have contributed throughout their working lives, are frozen in certain foreign countries, although not in the European Union, the United States and a handful of other countries. Nor is there any logic in the selection of those countries.
Why, for example, are pensions frozen at the northern end of Lake Superior, in Canada, but not at the southern end, in the United States? Why are they frozen in Trinidad and Tobago but not in Jamaica or Barbados? Why are they frozen in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh but not in Iceland? Why are the pensions of the 14 British pensioners residing in retirement in the Falkland Islands frozen, when hundreds of millions of pounds of British taxpayers' money has been spent reclaiming those islands as British sovereign territory from the Argentines?
Why, above all, are the pensions of those people who have retired to the old dominions, who make up nine out of every 10 of those being discriminated against, singled out for especially unfavourable treatment when, prior to 1955, they had received privileged treatment for pension purposes, and rightly so? Up to that point, it was only in His Majesty's dominions overseas that retirement pensions were payable overseas at all.
The biggest groups affected are 160,000 British pensioners in Australia and 118,000 in Canada. It is no wonder that, in recent months, the Prime Ministers of both those Commonwealth countries have made vigorous representations to our Prime Minister, regarding the shameful way—there is no other word for it—in which the


British Government expect their pensioners to be given a free ride on the shoulders of the taxpayers of the old dominions.
For example, British pensioners in Canada are today receiving an average weekly pension of £17.86 per week—not even one third of the current United Kingdom pension to which they have contributed. One of them, a Mr. R.S. Totman, of Fort Saskatchewan, Alberta, is just one of many thousands who has written to me in recent months to protest. He writes:
Living in Canada, as I do, and having left the United Kingdom in 1968, my pension is frozen at the princely sum of £4.50 per week. If I had moved to the country of one of our former enemies, such as Germany, I would receive the full current pension…twelve and a half times as much!…I urge your Prime Minister, the Rt. Hon. John Major, to press for this reform and not to let Britons abroad suffer any longer.
The most poignant pleas for help come from British pensioners living in South Africa and Zimbabwe. Neither country has any social security net available to those in need. Mrs. Edna Thompson of Durban wrote to me last year saying:
I am an 86-year-old widow living alone and along with many of my peers I am almost destitute. Please try to get the British Government to do what is right by us regarding equality of pensions for us overseas oldies—we would come back to UK to claim a living but haven't the fare. My pension is £24.30 every 28 days. I dread the winter as I cannot afford to use any heat. Please help us.
Mrs. Hannah Riddle wrote from Cape Town saying:
I hear that you are trying to help people who get a very small old age pension who do not live in England to get same upgraded. My late husband paid into the fund all his working life in England. We went out to Rhodesia in 1951 and he continued to pay into same yearly, until the age of 65…He got £6 a week but only lived to draw it for two years. I got £4 a week which is the sum I still receive. I am in my 90th year and find it hard to make ends meet these days. I wish you every success in your effort.
That lady and others like her are being cheated—there is no other word for it—by the Government of £53.60 per week of the pension to which they contributed. If we were talking about a private personal pension or a life insurance policy and the directors of the company tried to restrict the territorial area of payment, I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister would have a shrewd idea of where those directors would be languishing now. They would be in gaol, and rightly so.
More disturbingly, many of those facing the greatest hardship appear never to have been warned that by going abroad they would be depriving themselves of their entitlement to a full retirement pension at the current rate. Commander A.O. Johnson, retired from the Royal Navy, wrote to me from Noordhoek, South Africa and said:
My wife and I have lived here since 1951. I am now 85 and she 77. We receive £6.75 for self and £4.15 (for her) a week frozen. In 1951, having received Admiralty permission to emigrate, I wrote to ask if I would get the pension. You will see the reply.
The reply from the Ministry of National Insurance, dated 21 July 1951, states:
If you take up South African nationality at some future date your title to benefits under the National Insurance scheme will not be affected by this change…Retirement Pension, Widow's Benefit and Death Grant are…all payable in South Africa.
That reply was reinforced more than a decade later by the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance in a letter of 12 July 1963, which stated:
The Class Three contributions which you are paying maintain title to retirement pensions, death grant, widow's benefit and maternity benefit, all of which are payable abroad subject to territorial currency restrictions…If you regularly maintain

contributing to British National Insurance you will be entitled to this standard rate of retirement pension when you attain age 65.
No mention was made in any of that correspondence of the fact that they would be depriving themselves of all future upratings by going to live abroad alongside their children.
Finally, I want to quote from a letter from Mr. R. O. Craske of Harare, Zimbabwe. He writes:
May I quote the devastating and ludicrous situation of an old friend of ours who died recently at the age of 101 years with a British pension being paid to her at the rate of 50 pence per week, i.e. the rate of 10/-(ten shillings) which she was receiving when she came to this country before English decimalisation. In point of fact the cost of processing this payment absorbed the amount completely.
How tragic that this hero generation, who struggled through the great depression and gave their all for Britain in the second world war, should be so monstrously neglected and abandoned in their declining years. How shameful that their cries for help fall on the deaf ears or stony hearts of a Government in London who can readily find £4 million to finance the legal fees of an Iraqi millionaire business man, yet claim they cannot find £230 million to pay our pensioners the pension to which they contributed throughout their working lives.
My hon. Friend the Minister will no doubt tell us what an astronomical sum it is—but is it really? It represents less than 1 per cent. of the £36.6 billion by which the Government have so fecklessly increased social security expenditure since 1979 in real terms. It is not even one third of 1 per cent. of the overall DSS budget of £87.1 billion.
I am grateful to Back-Bench colleagues on both sides of the House for the powerful support that they have lent to my all-party early-day motion No.205 entitled "Inequality of treatment of British state pensioners living abroad." So far, 282 colleagues from all quarters of the House have signified their support, representing fully half of all Members entitled to sign EDMs.
Furthermore, the Government have been forced to admit that they have overestimated the cost of paying full state pensions to those living abroad by more than £100 million a year. As recently as 1991, the Government put the cost at £337 million. That was revised downwards in 1992 to £275 million and this year to a mere £230 million—almost one third less than the 1991 figure, despite a growth of 8 per cent. in the number of pensioners living in those countries and increases in the value of pensions of 6 per cent. What is going on? What can be the explanation for that? What confidence can we have that the latest figures are accurate?
I am bound to say that I have no sympathy whatever for the suggestion that the Government should wriggle out of their obligations to these, the most deserving of all our pensioners. A month ago today, on the beaches of Normandy, I saw how deeply moved was our Prime Minister as more than 7,000 British Normandy veterans marched past Her Majesty on the sands of Arromanches. The British expatriate pensioners that this Government are so shamefully seeking to disown are of the very same hero generation.
I call upon the Government tonight and specifically upon our Prime Minister, in the name both of moral obligation and natural justice, to end that shameful discrimination between British pensioners dependent on where they chose to retire, and to bring the United Kingdom into line with such countries as France and Italy,


where state pensions, including increases, are paid regardless of the country of residence and without the necessity of any reciprocal social security agreement.
Would it not be a fine thing in this year, when we celebrate the 50th anniversary of D-day, to remember those who have borne the heat and burden of the day and acquit the debt of honour that we owe them by unfreezing all those frozen pensions?

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. William Hague): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) for raising this matter on the Adjournment. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink), the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) and our Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) for being here.
My hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme made his case very powerfully, as we would expect. As he knows, this issue has been discussed for many years and the House is well aware of his commitment to it. He has written often to my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Social Security and has tabled a number of questions and an early-day motion. I am also aware of the strength of feeling among many British pensioners overseas.

Dr. Robert Spink: My hon. Friend the Minister mentioned the early-day motion; he will know that I do not sign early-day motions, although I support my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill). Does the Minister agree that the undertakings given by the Ministries of Pensions and of National Insurance, which were outlined so eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme, should be honoured?

Mr. Hague: I note that my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point registers his support for what my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme said, notwithstanding his reluctance to sign early-day motions. I shall be dealing with precisely the matter that he raised.
British pensions are paid anywhere in the world and we pay nearly 700,000 pensioners in more than 150 countries, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme said, more than half of them do not receive annual cost of living increases. That means that retired people who go to live in certain countries abroad will continue to receive their pensions at the rate payable when they left this country. Those who emigrated when younger get a pension payable at the rate in force when they reach retirement age. The expression that is commonly used, and which was used by my hon. Friend, is that pensions are frozen.
This policy has been followed by successive Governments ever since regulations were made in 1955, although my hon. Friend drew attention to advice given to individuals before those regulations—advice which clearly could not anticipate those regulations.

Mr. Churchill: It also happened afterwards, in 1963.

Mr. Hague: If my hon. Friend has a particular case in mind, I will of course consider it. The 1955 regulations, which provided for pensions to be paid abroad, did not provide for increases to be paid on top.
The principal difficulty in extending the payment of pension upratings abroad is the cost, as my hon. Friend anticipated. This year, the Government will spend some £800 million on pension payments to beneficiaries who live outside the United Kingdom. I know that my hon. Friend is only too well aware of the huge size of the social security budget and the need to ensure that it is sustainable and affordable in the future.
If all pensioners overseas were to be paid at the same level as pensioners in this country, that figure of £800 million would rise to about £1,030 million—an increase of nearly 30 per cent. or £230 million. That figure is no longer an estimate, in that it is based on the actual count of 85 per cent. of the pensioners overseas and what their entitlements would be. It is a huge amount of money and would have to be found from the existing social security budget paid to people who are resident in this country. The House knows that there are many worthwhile claims on that budget; we cannot meet them all at once.
The only circumstances in which overseas pensions are not frozen are where the pensioner is in the European Economic Area or where we have a reciprocal agreement with another country which provides specifically for upratings. We have some 30 such agreements, including those with member states of the European Economic Area, although most of the latter were in existence before our accession to the European Community. The costs of making any further agreements are a very important consideration, as I am sure my hon. Friend will recognise.
More than 80 per cent. of those pensioners who do not receive upratings live in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa. We have reciprocal agreements with Australia, Canada and New Zealand, but they do not provide for upratings. I know that my hon. Friend is particularly concerned with the situation of pensioners in these countries of the old Commonwealth, and he drew particular attention to them tonight. I should point out that to unfreeze pensions completely in those four countries alone would cost about £200 million, an increase of 25 per cent. on current expenditure on overseas pensions.
To pay future cost of living increases in these countries alone would cost some £10 million in 1994–95, rising each year until all pensioners in those countries were paid at the full United Kingdom rates, and eventually reaching the same cost of £200 million.

Mr. Churchill: Surely my hon. Friend appreciates that those are people who have contributed to their pension throughout their working lives. What right have this Government, or any Government, to cheat those people of more than £50 a week of the pension to which they have contributed?

Mr. Hague: I recognise my hon. Friend's point about the payment of national insurance contributions, and I shall talk about that in a couple of moments.
There are 160,000 retirement and widow pensioners in Australia who receive their United Kingdom pensions at frozen rates. Some 110,000 of them receive the means-tested Australian age pension. Pensioners with other resources, such as an occupational pension, will not qualify for the Australian age pension because of their income. Many of those who do qualify will have been able to use the reciprocal agreement which helps them satisfy


the Australian test of residence there. The United Kingdom pension is deducted from the Australian age pension and the balance is paid by the Australian Government.
To bring pensions paid in Australia up to the level of those in the United Kingdom would cost £105 million a year. From time to time, the Australian Government raise the issue with the United Kingdom Government, but we have had to make it clear that the cost would be prohibitive.
There are about 30,000 United Kingdom pensioners in New Zealand. If upratings were to be paid in Australia, New Zealand would undoubtedly seek equal treatment. Again, the stumbling block would be cost—some £20 million a year. We also have many pensioners in Canada—nearly 120,000. To increase all pensions in Canada to full United Kingdom rates would cost some £60 million a year.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme said, pensioners overseas have paid national insurance contributions. However, the money that an individual contributes to the national insurance fund is not, and never has been, earmarked for that person. Ever since it was established, the national insurance scheme has always worked on a pay-as-you-go basis. This year's contributions go to this year's pensioners. It has to be remembered that paying contributions does not give, and never has given, automatic entitlement to benefits.
The agreement between an individual and the state is that payment of contributions will give entitlement to benefit subject to certain conditions. For example, minimum pensionable age is currently set at 65 for men and 60 for women. Another condition is that retirement pension upratings are not generally payable abroad. That has been the position since 1955, and it has never been in any doubt under successive Governments of either party.
People who inquire about their pension position if they go to live overseas are informed of the policy. Public information about pension entitlements makes the position clear. For instance the current leaflet, "Social Security Abroad", explains that, for retirement pension, widow's pension and widowed mother's allowance, increases are not paid abroad unless very limited conditions are met.
The logic is that our social security system has been designed to provide for people in this country, and that annual upratings ensure that pensions are protected against price increases here. It is fair to point out that, since 1955, people affected would have known, or could have found out, that that would be the position—

Mr. Churchill: No, because they have been lied to by the Department.

Mr. Hague: —although I sympathise with the people whose cases have been described.
I shall now cover various other arguments that my hon. Friend has advanced. One is that the cost of pensions

uprating should be offset by the saving to public services here—in particular to the national health service, which pensioners overseas do not use. I understand the argument, but we do not know what calls those people as individuals would have made on the NHS. Moreover, many went abroad long before reaching pension age, so, for many years, they did not contribute to health service costs. Also, of course, the pensioners concerned have gone abroad anyway, so to pay them unfrozen pensions would still be a major extra cost.
I assure my hon. Friend—although no doubt he is all too well aware of this already—that the issue is frequently brought to the Government's attention. We are familiar with the arguments in favour of a change of policy, and we are sympathetic, but we cannot disregard the huge cost involved.
Let me emphasise that we pay out more than £800 million a year to some 700,000 pensioners overseas, of whom about 300,000 get fully uprated pensions. However much we might like to do more, social security spending is running at more than £80 billion a year. Social security is the Government's largest expenditure programme. In the current year, it accounts for 28 per cent. of planned public expenditure and nearly 13 per cent. of the gross domestic product.
The Government are committed to an efficient, effective and affordable social security system that is appropriate to modern needs and protects the most vulnerable, but we have to ensure that spending on social security does not outstrip the nation's ability to pay for it.
My hon. Friend is a keen advocate of carefully controlling social security spending and he will know that my Department is conducting a fundamental review of spending. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has announced some specific proposals for reform over past years. Incapacity benefit, our vigorous efforts to combat fraud and the gradual equalisation of a state pension age at 65 are all designed to help restrain the growth in cost.
In the interests of restraining the growth in cost, and of ensuring that the social security system is affordable in future, the control of social security spending must be tight. It is always easy to say that desirable items of spending would represent only a small addition to the budget, but if every idea was regarded in that way and accepted on that basis, the social security budget would soon be vastly greater.
Control of spending must be tight. Payments to people resident overseas cannot be an exception to that. In such a climate, I must tell my hon. Friend that I am afraid that I cannot hold out any prospect of our being able to increase our expenditure by adding to spending on pensions overseas.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes past Eleven o'clock